JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the Judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 24-7-1981 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. On 20th November, 1980 one Satya Narayan son of Shri Keshar Lal Balai, resident of Kalyanji-ka-Rasta, Jaipur lodged a written report at Police station, Kotwali Jaipur to the effect that accused appellant Satya Narayan used to stay in his neighbour-hood and he started throwing water upon his 'Kaki', who warned him, but the accused started abusing her. On hearing the filthy abuses, the complainant, his wife, daughter, son and brother Ramgopal came there and some other tenants had also collected. The accused appellant gave beatings with iron rod to the complainant and his brother Ramgopal, as a result of which they sustained injuries. The accused ran away from the scene and went to his house. Bhima and Satya Narayan alias Kaliya went to Kotwali for lodging the report. Keshar Lal and others remained standing at the scene of occurrence. Accused appellant came out from his house with a knife and attacked the complainant's brother and Magan Lal. Ram Gopal tried to save himself and the knife hit complainant's father Keshar lal and as result the intestine of his father came out. He was taken to the Police Station by Ram Gopal and from there to the Hospital, where he died. The Police registered a case against the accused appellant under Sections 307, 326, 147, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused appellant denied the prosecution allegation and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case and submitted a written statement. Two witnesses were examined in defence. After trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. It is against the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant that the present appeal has been filed. 3. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case and submitted a written statement. Two witnesses were examined in defence. After trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. It is against the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant that the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has seriously contended that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating the prosecution evidence is not in accordance with law. All the so-called eye-witnesses are interested being the relations of the deceased and therefore, their evidence should have been examined with closure scrutiny. The prosecution has not come out with true version of the genesis of the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the accused appellant. No blood was found at the place of incident and the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the defence in proper perspective. 4. He has further submitted that the explanation of the accused is more probable to explain his injuries and non-availability of blood on the spot, as the whole incident had taken place at the house of the accused and the accused appellant was beaten and the knife blow which hit the deceased was not inflicted by the accused appellant, but it was aimed at the accused appellant and since he saved himself, it lended on the deceased. Moreover, the names of all the eye witnesses are not mentioned in the First Information Report except the names of Bhonri Devi and Ram Gopal, therefore, also the eye witnesses should not be believed. 5. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further submitted that even if the whole prosecution story is believed to be correct, then also the case cannot travel beyond Section 504 (2) IPC as it is a case of single injury by knife. 6. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and has submitted that there is over whelming evidence of as many as 9 eye-witnesses, who have corroborated the prosecution story and the defence has not been able to bring out any inconsistency or improbability in the lengthy cross-examination of these witnesses. Most of the witnesses were injured and their presence has been admitted by the accused in his written statement. 7. Most of the witnesses were injured and their presence has been admitted by the accused in his written statement. 7. We have considered the various arguments submitted at the bar and have also gone through the record of the case. 8. In all 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom 9 are the eye witnesses, namely, PW 1 Sita Ram, PW 2 Satya Narayan, PW 4 Kalu Ram, PW 5 Mohani Devi, PW 7 Bhima, PW 8 Smt. Kamla Devi, PW 9 Ram Gopal, PW 11 Phool Chand and PW 12 Raj Devi. PW 3 Ram Dayal, PW 6 Lal Chand, PW 10 Umardeen, PW 14 Ali Manzar, PW 15 Kan Singh, PW 16 Iqbal Singh and PW 18 Basir Mohamed are the formal witnesses. PW 13 Shri Roop Singh is the Investigating Officer, PW 17 Dr. M.R. Goyal is the Medical Jurist, who conducted post-mortem of the deceased. Out of the 9 eye witnesses, PW 2 Satya Narayan & PW 9 Ram Gopal are the sons of deceased, PW 7 is brother of the deceased, PW 5 is the wife of PW 7 who is brother of the deceased: PW11 is Samdhi. More over, it is admitted that there was dispute between PW 7 Bhima and the deceased as the accused appellant had demolished the wall constructed by Bheema on several occasions. Bhima and his relations and party had given beating to the accused appellant, for which a criminal case was also launched by the accused appellant. Only three eye witnesses can be called as independent witnesses namely PW 1 Sita Ram PW 4 Kalu Ram and PW 12 Raj Devi. PW 2 Satya Narayan who is the brother of the deceased and who had lodged the FIR has supported the prosecution story and have narrated what he had mentioned in the FIR. Other eye witnesses have also jointly supported the prosecution story. But there are of course some contradictions and improvements in their statements. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have admitted in their cross examination that there was a dispute between Bhima Ram, brother of the deceased and Satya Narayan accused appellant. On the report of the accused appellant, the Municipality had removed the wall on several occasions, constructed by Bhima Ram and therefore, Bhima Ram was inimical towards the accused appellant. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have admitted in their cross examination that there was a dispute between Bhima Ram, brother of the deceased and Satya Narayan accused appellant. On the report of the accused appellant, the Municipality had removed the wall on several occasions, constructed by Bhima Ram and therefore, Bhima Ram was inimical towards the accused appellant. The defence story is that the prosecution witnesses had gone to the house of the accused appellant on the date of the incident and had damaged the door of his house and entered in his house gave beating to the accused appellant and his family members and that Satya Narain alias Kalya wanted to inflict a blow on the accused and since the accused appellant saved himself, it lended on Keshar Lal and that there was lot of blood in the house of the accused appellant. This case was put to almost all the prosecution witnesses. They have of course denied. In defence DW 1 Ramesh Chandra has been examined, who had photographed and has produced Ex. D. 8 and D. 9 which show that the door of the accused's house was damaged. The accused has also produced copy of the FIR (Ex. D. 1) dated 16-9-1977, wherein he had complained against Kalu Ram son of Bhika Ram, who had given beating and also copy of the charge sheet Ex. D 1 and Ex. D 2 respectively. A case was also registered under Section 324 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has also produced copy of the FIR (Ex. D. 3) dated 21-7-80 filed by the accused appellant against Bhima Ram, Kalu, Mangiya, Bhonri and Kamla and a copy of the charge sheet (Ex. D. 4) wherein a case under Sections 147, 451 and 336 IPC was registered. The accused appellant has further produced Ex. D. 5, an application by the Police under Section 107, 116 Cr. PC against Shri Kahl S/o Shri Bhima and the accused appellant on a written report by the accused on 24-4-80 it was prayed that both the parties may be bound down under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. Accused has also produced Ex. D. 7 by which the S.H.O. Kotwali, Jaipur had sent the accused appellant on 26-11-80 to the Medical Jurist S.M.S. Medical Hospital. Jaipur for examining his injuries. P.C. Accused has also produced Ex. D. 7 by which the S.H.O. Kotwali, Jaipur had sent the accused appellant on 26-11-80 to the Medical Jurist S.M.S. Medical Hospital. Jaipur for examining his injuries. Gafar has been examined as DW 2 who has deposed that he had taken deceased Keshar Lal in his Rickshaw from the house of the accused appellant and at that time Keshar Lal had the injury in his stomach and lot of blood was lying on the ground in the house of the accused appellant and he had taken the Rickshaw on the asking of Bhima and Kaliya. This witness was named in the list of the prosecution witnesses filed along-with the challan, but the prosecution did not examine him and he was examined in defence. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, Even in the arrest memo (Ex. P. 11), there is a mention of injuries received by the accused appellant. It is also significant that no blood was found on the spot as per Ex. P. t site plan and also the evidence of PW 13 Shri Roop Singh, the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has admitted about the defence exhibits D. 1 to D. 7. 9. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses. In our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond doubt. The defence story seems to be more probable. Learned Sessions Judge has also placed reliance on the recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused appellant. Ram Dayal (PW 3) who was the independent witness and was examined as recovery witness to Ex. P. 5 (recovery memo) has deposed that he had not seen the accused appellant bringing the knife, but he had signed the recovery memo without reading and that it was not read-over to him. There is only one injury, which has proved fatal as per Ex. P 21 and the evidence of PW 17 Dr. Goyal. 10. Taking an over-all views of the whole matter it appears to us that Bhima Ram was admittedly inimical towards the accused appellant has falsely implicated the accused appellant and in our view the accused appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. P 21 and the evidence of PW 17 Dr. Goyal. 10. Taking an over-all views of the whole matter it appears to us that Bhima Ram was admittedly inimical towards the accused appellant has falsely implicated the accused appellant and in our view the accused appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC is set-aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. The accused appellant is in jail. He may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******