JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is against the judgment dated 29-3-76 of the Sessions Judge, Merta, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 325 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts were these. There was some dispute between P.W. 1 Surjaram and P.W. 2 Kishna with the appellant and the other co-accused, who had been acquitted. On 17-4-1974 at about 1 p.m. P W. 1 Surja and P.W. 2 Kishna with their wives were going to their field in a bullock cart. All the accused including the appellant met them in the way. Appellant Mansa gave a lathi blow to Kishna with the result that he became unconscious. FIR Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Surja at police station Parbatsar. A case was registered and usual investigation including the medical examination of the injured was done. A charge sheet under sections 307, 325 and 323 IPC was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, who committed the case to the Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge believed the testimony of Kishna as corroborated by the statement of P.W 7 Dr. Bhanwar Singh, found the appellant guilty of offence under sec. 325 IPC. The co-accused was however, acquitted of the offence with which they were charged. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case carefully. It is strangely a cate where all the witnesses including the wife of injured Kishna had put forward a case that Kishna received the injuries due to a fall from the bullock cart. However, the learned Sessions Judge observed that these witnesses have gone hostile because Surja had entered into a compromise with the appellant and preferred the sole statement of Kishna. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in these circumstances it is unsafe to rely upon the solitary statement of Kishna. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the incident did not occur in the manner deposed to by this witness. I have considered this argument carefully. No doubt, P.W. 2 Kishna stated that he with his brother Surja and their wives were going to their field in a cart. Near the field of one Surja, Mansha and Babu came armed with lathis. Mansha gave a lathi blow and he became unconscious. I have considered this argument carefully. No doubt, P.W. 2 Kishna stated that he with his brother Surja and their wives were going to their field in a cart. Near the field of one Surja, Mansha and Babu came armed with lathis. Mansha gave a lathi blow and he became unconscious. At that time he was moving on feet. I have considered the statement carefully and it cannot be said that this witness is of sterling worth According to him he was given only one lathi blow but from Ex P. 1 and statement of P.W. 7. two injuries appeared to have been caused to him Surja was also injured but Kishna had not deposed a word about the incident It appears that Kishna has suppressed some parts of the incident The learned Sessions Judge believed Kishna solely on the ground that he could not have received the injury from a fall from a bullock cart as was opined by P.W. 7 Dr. Bhanwar Singh. P.W. 1 Surja stated that Kishna received the injury due to a fall from a bullock cart. P.W. 3 Phula did not depose anything material regarding he prosecution case. P.W. 4 Hastudi wife of Kishna deposed that she did not accompany her husband to the field. She could not say who injured her husband. It is strange that if Kishna had not entered into the compromise with the appellant Hastudi, the wife of the injured would turn hostile. I, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the statement of this witness. D.W. 1 Gyarsi is the wife of the maker of the F IR. She also stated tint Kishna received the injury as a result of the fall from the bullock cart. In view of the clear statements of Surja and his wife, D.W. 1 Kishni, it is difficult to place complete reliance on the statement of Kishna, solely on the basis of the medical opinion that he could not have received these injuries from a fall Kishna might have received injuries in any other manner or possibly even from a fall from a bullock carats is deposed by his own brother and his wife. In such circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of Kishna to find the appellant guilty. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt in these circumstances. 4. In such circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of Kishna to find the appellant guilty. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt in these circumstances. 4. I, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the offence under section 325 IPC. The trial court has directed the prosecution of P.W. 1 Surja for perjury. This order also is set aside as the statement of Kishna has not been relied upon. The appellant is on bail and he need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby discharged.Appeal Accepted. *******