JUDGMENT 1. - Sessions Judge. Tonk vide his judgment dated 25.2.1883 found the appellant (Abdul Karim) guilty for the offences under Sections 307 & 326, IPC, and sentenced him as under:- U/s 307, IPC To undergo R. I. for one & half years & to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-( 1 month's further R. I., in default of payment of fine). U/s 326, IPC To undergo R.I. for one years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, further one months R. I.). Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Upon a Parcha Bayan of Abdul Rehman recorded on 21.1.1982, a criminal case for the offences under Sections 307, 326, & 325, IPC, was registered at police station Kotwali (Tonk) According to the Parcha Bayan, Abdul Rehman was called by son, Aziz from the Arabic School intimating him that Kale Khan, Pyare & Sabir had been beating the women of the family, and immediately after his arrival at his house, the afore named three persons, along with Chhotiya & Abdulla surrounded him. Abdul Karim is said to have caused injuries by a Ballam on hips & abdomen whereas Pyare & Sabir caused lathi injuries. 3. First contention on behalf of the appellant is that for the self same incident, arraying as Abdul Rehman (PWI), & Ajij-jur-rehman (PW11) as accused, a cross case for the murder of Sabir was registered and they faced trial but, therein, learned trial Court acquitted them (PWI & PWI 1) on 25-2-1983 a copy of that decision has been produced by Shri S.M. Ali today. According to that decision in cross-case (supra), the trial Court found that it was darknight and at the time of the incident, the light had went off and in such a situation, it was very difficult to have witnessed the incident. Taking the aid of the situation, Shri S.M. Ali, on behalf of the appellant, vociforcely urged that on similar findings, the prosecution evidence should also be discarded in the case at hand because, the prosecution witnesses were not at all in a position to see and say that the injuries allegedly caused on the person of Abdul Rehman were certainly caused by the present appellant. 4. 4. Shri S.M. Ali then urged that in the same incident, appellant's son has lost his life but, in an arbitrary manner, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 326 & 307, IPC. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment passed in the case at hand (Sess. case No. 21/82) as well as in Sess. case No. 19/82 (cross case against the present complainant party). Having considered the rival contention, in my view, the contention of Shri S.M. Ali cannot be said to be jejune. In cross-case, the trial Court found that it was a darknight when the incident took place and there was no gleam of light as having it been went off at the time of occurrence and, therefore, it was quite impracticable for the prosecution witnesses to have been seen the author of the injuries on the injured persons so as to particularise the act of culpable at the instance of the present appellant However, the trial Court in the case at hand for the self-same incident has taken a different view and in this view of the matter, it is a case where different standard has been adopted by the trial Court for appreciating the evidence. 6. As rightly pointed out by Shri S.M. Ali, the trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the ground that a spear was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house but the recovery witnesses turned hostile, thereby the recovery of weapon of offence has not been proved. I also feel that when the recovery witnesses turned hostile then the recovery against the appellant cannot be said to be proved. I also feel that when the recovery witnesses turned hostile then the recovery against the appellant cannot be said to be proved. Moreover, when two of the persons are said to have sustained injuries in the same incident then the possibility cannot be ruled out that the blood found on the spear was of Abdul Rehman or Sabbir (deceased), person from the accused side and in that situation, a report from the Chemical Examiner about the blood on the recovered spear was essential but it is lacking in the case at hand and in these circumstances, mere evidence of the spear having been recovered duly blood stained cannot be read in evidence against the appellant, unless the blood stains found on the recovered weapon of offence are proved to have been tallied with blood group of the injured person. 7. It is admitted position that in the case at hand, only three witnesses viz., Abdul Rehman (PWI) injured, his wife Kafia (PW4) and his son, Ajij-jur-Rehman (PW11). have been produced whereas as per the statements of these above named witnesses, there had been gathering of people at the place of incident and several persons witnessed the incident. But, none of the persons from the locality has been produced by the prosecution and this raises a presumption to draw that it is a case where interested persons have been produced in evidence against the appellant, That apart, when Abdul Rehman & Ajij-jur-Rehman were facing trial of murder charge then it was quite natural to withhold their evidence which was likely to come against them also, so as to save themselves from the charge of murder of Sabir (person from the appellant side). Thus, the persecution in the case at hand rests on the testimony of the interested persons and that cannot be believed in the presence of the evidence brought on record in cross case for the same incident. And, the contention raised by Shri S. M. Ali on behalf of the present appellant cannot be said to be fur-lorn, and in my view, the trial trial Court did not adopt the same standard of appreciation of the evidence as was done by it in cross case. And, the contention raised by Shri S. M. Ali on behalf of the present appellant cannot be said to be fur-lorn, and in my view, the trial trial Court did not adopt the same standard of appreciation of the evidence as was done by it in cross case. That apart, mere evidence of recovery cannot be read as against the appellant that too having corroboratory evidence of blood group of the injured from the Chemical Examiner, inasmuch as the witnesses produced by the prosecution in the case at hand are interested and they, in their anxiety to go whole hog to support the charge, are prone to exaggerate the matters and this possibility thereby cannot be ruled that they made false statements in order to get rid themselves of the murder charge in cross case of the same incident and where the son of the present appellant had lost his life. In this view of the matter, no conviction under Section 307 & 326, IPC, for the alleged act, can be sustained. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. His appeal is allowed. His conviction & sentence under both the counts, for the offences under Sections 307, IPC, and 326, IPC, are set aside. He is acquitted of the offences charged. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled. The record be sent back with malkhana articles, if any forthwith.Acquitted. *******