K. N. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his father Ratan Shah and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case was that deceased Ratan Shah was sleeping in his farm on the night of 29th December, 1982. In the morning at about 6 a. m. , the appellant went to the farm and dropped a heavy stone on the head of his father resulting in his death. The same day, appellant himself lodged the report of his father's homicidal death at police station Amarwara at about 12 noon. Investigating Officer reached the spot, prepared inquest memo and sent the body for post-mortem examination. Dr. J. P. Patel (P. W. 14) noted one contusion 12 cm. x 6 cm. over the left side of the head on temporal, parietal and frontal region. Second was contusion 7 cm. x 6 cm. on left side of the fore-head, just above the eye- brow and the third was a contusion 10 cm x 5 cm. over the tempo-parietal region of right side of the head. On dissection, he found depressed fracture of left temporal and adjoining part of parietal bone, fracture of hygrometric process with fissured fracture of temporal bone of the right side. ( 3 ) A stone was seized from the place where the dead body was lying. But it was not sent for chemical examination and, therefore, there was no finding whether the stone was stained with blood or not. ( 4 ) THE appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he was falsely impacted. Death of Ratan Shah was obviously homicidal. The question is whether the prosecution established the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Star witness of the prosecution is Bhoop Singh (P. W. 1), a farm employee of the appellant. He stated that he had accompanied the appellant to the farm and from a distance of about 150 ft. , he saw the appellant dropping a stone on the deceased. He further stated that he informed appellants mother and Gendlal, Kotwar (P. W. 3), his own father-in-law and also some other persons about the incident. Gendlal denied that Bhoop Singh ever informed him about the appellant dropping a stone on his father and killing him. , he saw the appellant dropping a stone on the deceased. He further stated that he informed appellants mother and Gendlal, Kotwar (P. W. 3), his own father-in-law and also some other persons about the incident. Gendlal denied that Bhoop Singh ever informed him about the appellant dropping a stone on his father and killing him. Gendlal Kotwar had accompanied the appellant to the police station where the First Information Report was lodged by him. Had Bhoop Singh informed Gendlal about this immediately being a Kotwar of the village. Another person whom Bhoop Singh is said to have informed about the incident was one Shyamlal, who was not examined at all by the prosecution. Statement of Bhoop Singh in cross-examination shows that he and one Khubchand were also suspects and both were detained at the police station for 4 or 5 days. Bhoop Singhs statement was recorded by the police 5 days after the incident, though admittedly he was present when the police had arrived at the spot of occurrence and had prepared inquest memo. Keeping in view these circumstances, the testimony of Bhoop Singh becomes highly suspect. Besides, the medical evidence also does not support the story narrated by Bhoop Singh. No question was put to Dr. Patel whether the injuries of different dissection on different parts of the head could be caused by dropping a stone on the head. Prima facie, it appears that these three injuries could not be caused by single drop of stone. ( 5 ) AS already noted, stone was not sent for ascertaining - whether it was stained with blood and, therefore, there was a gross infirmity in the testimony of the alleged eyewitness about the weapon of offence. ( 6 ) THERE is no other incriminating evidence against the appellant and since the statement of Bhoop Singh is not free from suspicion, conviction for murder could not rest on his testimony. ( 7 ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellants conviction and sentence arc set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .