JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.80 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 2 of the Raj Preservation of Certain Animals Act. 2. On the basis of report Ex. P1 a case was registered against the accused appellant for the offences under Section 2 of the Raj. Preservation of Certain Animals Act (for short 'the Act'). After investigation the challan was filed against the accused appellant for the aforesaid Section of the Act. Charge for the said Section was framed against the accused appellant who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. In all seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in support of the charge. Statement of accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C, was recorded wherein he denied the allegation levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses. In defence eight witnesses have been produced. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record and gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of the PW 3 (Surja) who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident on the ground that the witness has disowned his police statement and made improvement before the trial court. PW 1 (Bhinva Ram) though is an informant and owner of the cow but he was not an eye witness and he lodged the report on the basis of the information received from PW 2 (Ram Lal). PW 4 (Balla Ram) and PW 5 (Ratan Lal) are formal witnesses. PW. 6 (Dr J.S. Panu) conducted the post mortem and he has proved Ex. P 5 and Ex. P. 6. PW 7 (Bhanwar Singh) is an Investigation Officer. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the conviction of the accused appellant is based merely on the evidence of PW 2 (Ram Lal), PW 6 (Dr. J.S. Panu) and PW 7 (Bhanwar Singh) but the statement of PW 2 (Ram Lal) is not corroborated at all by PW 6 (Dr. J.S. Panu) and PW 7 (Bhanwar Singh) on the following grounds:- (1) That PW 2 (Ram Lal) has stated that the injuries were inflicted by Gandasi on the left leg just near the ankle of the cow but PW 6 (Dr. J.S. Panu) and PW 7 (Bhanwar Singh) on the following grounds:- (1) That PW 2 (Ram Lal) has stated that the injuries were inflicted by Gandasi on the left leg just near the ankle of the cow but PW 6 (Dr. J.S. Panu) in his statement has deposed that the wound was a punctured wound which cannot be caused by the Gandasi. (2) that no blood was found inside the field of the accused appellant where the incident is alleged to have been taken place as per the statement of PW 2 (Ram Lal). (3) that the testimony of PW 2 (Ram Lal) has been disbelieved against co-accused Shri Gyarsi Lal who has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, same witness cannot be believed for the other accused. 5. In support of the arguments learned counsel referred the following cases : (a) 1975 SC 1727 (b) 1988 SC 1159 6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and contended that the defence theory has not been believed by the learned trial court because same was not possible in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. I have considered points raised by both the learned counsel. It cannot be disputed that the incised wound and punctured wounds are different kinds of wounds and incised wound is caused by sharp cutting instrument such as knife, rajor, seissors, sword, Gandasi etc. An incised wound is always broader than the edge of the weapon causing it owing to the retraction of the divided tissues. It is some what spindle shaped and gaping, its length being greater then its depth. Its edges are smooth, even, clear cut, well defined and usually averted. But punctured wounds as are popularly called stabs wound and are termed penetrating wounds, when passing through the tissues they enter into cavity of the body. These wounds are produced by a long piercing or stabbing instrument, such as a pin, niddle, knife, scissors, bonnet, spear, dagger etc. The point of the instrument may be sharp or blunt a stab wound caused by a sharp pointed instrument has clear cut edges which ate almost parallel but slightly curved to each other. The wound is generally hedge shaped, if it is produced by an instrument with a thick, broad back and only one cutting edge. 8. The point of the instrument may be sharp or blunt a stab wound caused by a sharp pointed instrument has clear cut edges which ate almost parallel but slightly curved to each other. The wound is generally hedge shaped, if it is produced by an instrument with a thick, broad back and only one cutting edge. 8. In the light of the descriptions of the wounds it is to be seen as to whether the wound caused was an incised wound or a punctured wound, because, in Ex. P. 5 it has not been so mentioned by PW 6 (Dr. J. S. Panu) in his post mortem report. In that report it is simply mentioned that the left matatarsas bone bears two bleeding wounds cutting the blood vessels. No other injury was found by PW 6 (Dr. J. S. Panu) at the time of conducting the post-mortem examination. In this report Ex. P5 weapon of offence is also not mentioned. Because of the absence of aforesaid material particulars the investigating officer made a query and on that query PW 6 (Dr. J. S. Panu) has given a subsequent report marked as Ex. P6. Wherein it has been mentioned that the wounds found on the body of cow was caused by piercing object. 9. As such it is clear that the injuries found on the body of the cow were punctured wounds and the same cannot be caused by Gandasi as has been observed while defining the kinds of wounds. 10. In this view of the matter the statement of the (Ramlal) becomes doubtful and as such it can be said that his statement has not been corroborated by PW 6 (Dr. J. S. Panu) who is an independent expert witness. In the case of Ram Narain and others v. State of Punjab and Haryana, 1975 SC 727 it has been observed that when the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is the most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. If the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is the most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. Similar view has been taken in the case reported in 1988 SC 1159. 11. In the instant case, the case of the prosecution was that the accused appellant inflicted gandasi blows and thereby sustained injuries on the left leg of the cow inside the field and subsequently the cow was driven out of the field. But in the site plan prepared by PW 7 (Bhanwar Singh, Investigation Officer) did not mention that the blood was found inside the field of the accused appellant. In the site plan, the blood is shown outside the field of the accused appellant from the point where the cow fell down to the place where the cow died. It is thus clear that no blood was there in the field of the accused appellant at the time when the Investigating Officer inspected the site. This is also a circumstance to discredit the testimony of PW 2 (Ramlal). In view of the circumstances mentioned above when the testimony of PW 2 (Ramlal) becomes doubtful then there remains no evidence against the accused appellant so as to convict him for the charge which has been levelled against him. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and acquit the accused appellant for the charge levelled against him. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, and need not to surrender.Appeal Allowed. *******