JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the following impugned conviction & sentence of the appellant :U/s 324, IPC - Six month's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- (indefault, further 15 days RI-)U/s 323, IPC - One month's R.I.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts:Police Station Manak Chowk received an information on 22.7.1982 from police control room about an incident of squabble which took place at Pitaliyon Ka Chowk in Jaipur City. The said information was recorded by Girdhari Singh, Head Moharir and thereupon, Om Prakash, ASI of the police station reached S.M.S. Hospital where he recorded parcha Bayan of one Dushyant Sharma on the very day at 8 P.M. It had been stated in the Parcha Bayan that at about 7 P.M. when he was sitting at City Drug House, Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, the appellant (Satya Narain Sharma) (who is said to he his co-employee while he was working at Shri Press, Johri Bazar) duly armed with an axe, came all of a sudden and started inflicting blows, and that, first blow was inflicted on his right hand and then on left hand & head. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid parcha Bayan, F.I.R. was chalked out and the investigation commenced and the challan was filed. After committal proceedings. the appellant chareid with offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 & 323,IPC, to which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After due trial, and hearing the parties, the trial Court found that no case for offence under Section 307, IPC, is made out against the appellant but it held the appellant guilty for offences under Section 324 & 323, IPC, and then sentenced him as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court, itself, disbelieved Ramchandra (Pw4)'s evidence by observing that his name has not been stated by the injured in his Parcha Bayan and thus, it held Ramchandra (Pw4) as a made-up witness, as would be evident from the findings arrived at by it in paras 16 & 17 of its judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court, itself, disbelieved Ramchandra (Pw4)'s evidence by observing that his name has not been stated by the injured in his Parcha Bayan and thus, it held Ramchandra (Pw4) as a made-up witness, as would be evident from the findings arrived at by it in paras 16 & 17 of its judgment. That apart, the trial Court disbelieved the testimony of Om Prakash, ASI, who recorded Parcha Bayan of the injured, by observing that the injured himself had deposed that no statement was recorded by the police on 22.7.82 but on 23.7.82, as would be evident form the findings recorded by the trial Court in para 23 of its judgment, and on the same finding, the trial Court also disbelieved the testimony of the injured, Shri S.M. Ali added. 4. Shri S.M. Ali then contended that the appellant has been convicted solely on the testimony of the injured and according to him, the injured cannot be held to be witness of sterling worth because, being antagonist having inimical terms as per his own version given out in the Parcha Bayan, he has exaggerated the version in whole hog to support its story, as would be evident from the circumstances appearing on record that as per injury report, he sustained nine injuries but, according to his statement before Om Prakash ASI of the police station, only three blows were inflicted by the appellant. Taking the aid of the aforesaid circumstances, Shri S.M. Ali vociforcely contended that it has not been explained by the injured or any of the prosecution witnesses as to who had caused the remaining six injuries found on his person and thus, according to him, this makes the prosecution case highly doubtful. 5. Further, Shri S.M. Ali contended that even if the statement of the injured is believed on the point of recording of his statement by the police then his statement which was first in time being recorded allegedly on 22.7.1982, has been withheld by the prosecution and it raises a legal presumption that in that first statement, name of the appellant was not appearing nor stated by the injured and subsequently, second statement was allegedly recorded by making interpolations showing the appellant's name therein. 6. 6. Shri S.M. Ali also urged that no motive has been stated by the injured in his statement nor immediate cause which necessitated the incident of squabble, has been shown in his Parcha Bayan rather subsequently, the version has been exaggerated by improvement and indulging in equivocation during trial while he has deposed that some two years back, he & the appellant used to work at Shri press and at that time, they had some hot exchanges and this hot exchanges have been stated to be the cause of incident as they had inimical terms out of the incident of hot exchanges took place some two years back of the instant incident; but the injured himself, in his statement admitted that during this intervening period of last two years they had occasions to meet each other many a times during which the appellant never caused any injury on his person. According to Shri S.M.Ali, the aforesaid testimony cannot be a sufficient circumstance to prove the motive rather on the very face of it, such a testimony casts doubt on the prosecution story for the cause of the instant incident of squabble. 7. Shri S.M. All then concluded that none of the persons from the locality where the incident took place, has beer, produced by the prosecution though admittedly, the incident had taken place in a day time & as the statement of the injured, he was sent to the hospital by the persons from the locality, itself. This shows that the persons from the vicinity were definitely present at the time of the incident but I fail to understand as to why they have not been produced by the prosecution so as to corroborate the testimony of the injured. 8. Keeping in view the circumstances pointed out by the trial Court, itself and wrung out during the course of arguments before this Court, in my view, it is a case where the evidence of the injured cannot be sufficient without corroboration to base the impugned conviction rather the circumstances make in clear that on account of the alleged enemity out of hot exchanges this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant has been named out of suspicion and he has been falsely implicated and the prosecution has not come with origin and genesis of the occurrence. No independent person from the locality where the incident is alleged to have taken place has been produced in order to corroborate the testimony of the injured. Looking to size, number and nature of the injuries found on the person of the injured qua his accusation against the appellant, it can easily be presumed that the injured has suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident inasmuch as the injured's injuries could not have been sustained in the manner claimed by him and the prosecution rather raises a presumption that it might have been caused in some other incident. It is a case of single witness injured and whose evidence in the facts and circumstances narrated above in view of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant which have substance & with which I am in total agreement, cannot be acted upon without corroboration which, itself, is missing in the case at hand, so as to convict the appellant and thus the impugned conviction & sentence is not sustainable and serves to be set aside because, the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction & sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence charged and for which he was sentenced & convicted under the impugned judgment. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******