D. P. S. CHOUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Charna, having been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 79/84 for committing offence u/s 307 I. P. C. where under he was sentenced to five yearst R. I. has approached this Court by means of present appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence under judgment dt. 14-3-1986 by Addi. Sessions Judge, Shahdol. ( 2 ) THE occurrence in question took place on 22-5-1984 in village Sakrakhor P. S. Budhar, Distt. Shahdol and F. I. R was lodged on 23-51984 (Ex. P-4) at 11. 40 a. m. by Radhe (PW 2) at the police station Budhar. In the incident in question Radhe (PW 2) is said to have received injuries which were examined by Dr. A. K. Jam (PW 1) and the injury report is Ex. P-i. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case in brief was that in village Sakrakhor, the appellant, his widowed sister Budhwaria alias Koperhine (PW 6) and his mother Raiman (PW 7) alongwith Chimpe were living. In the same village, Radhe (PW 2) Jaykaran (PW 3), Faguna (PW 4) and Jhurha (PW 8) were also living. Radhe (PW 2) hurled abuses on Koperhine whereat there has been altercation between Radhe and Koperhine at the place of Faguna (PW 4 ). Regarding the altercation, Radhe (PW 2) wanted to give his explanation to the father of Koperhine but subsequent to the aforesaid altercation, when Radhe (PW 2) alone was going from the house of Faguna to his own house, then, he in the way was assaulted by the accused from behind with a Tangi (Axe) and one blow was given as a result of which Radhe ran from that place and fell down in the court-yard of Jaykaran (PW 3 ). At that time, Radhe was blood-stained and was telling that the accused had beaten him. Jaykaran (PW 3) informed the family members of Radhe and took Radhe to the police station Budhar where a report (Ex. P-4) was lodged on the next day and Radhe was immediately sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-i-A. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined as many as 10 witnesses. Dr. A. K. Jam, who examined the injuries of Radhe was examined-as P. W. 1. Radhe, the injured was examined as PW 2. Jaykaran, a village man at whose house Radhe after receiving injury, reached was examined as PW 3. P-i-A. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined as many as 10 witnesses. Dr. A. K. Jam, who examined the injuries of Radhe was examined-as P. W. 1. Radhe, the injured was examined as PW 2. Jaykaran, a village man at whose house Radhe after receiving injury, reached was examined as PW 3. Faguna, another village man who was a witness of altercation, was examined as PW 4. Amritlal, a witness to seizure of Tangi, was examined as PW 5. Budhwaria alias Koperhine, the sister of the appellant was examined as PW 6. Raimun, the mother of Koperhine was examined as PW 7. Jhurha, a village man, was examined as PW 8. Shyameshwar Prasad Patwari who had prepared the site plan was examined as PW 9 and Vikramaditya Singh ASI who had investigated the crime was examined as PW io. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, Raimun PW 7 and Jhurha (PW 8) were declared hostile by the prosecution. The injuries received by Radhe (PW 2) as per injury report Ex. P-i are extracted below: (i) Incised wound 2_h/2 x i_h/2t x i_h/2 deep exposing the lung tissue on left side of back on upper side 4h/2 below occipital protuberance, with soft blood clot. T In defence, Ramswarath Singh was examined. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State Counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant made five-fold submissions: (1) That the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt its case and the prosecution case does not find support from the medical report. (2) Evidence of the prosecution on account of the FIR being delayed, does not inspire confidence and makes the prosecution case doubtful. (3) The time of the incident as mentioned in the FIR is not corroborated by Jaykaran (PW 3) who is one of the witnesses of the occurrence. (4) No motive on the part of the appellant to cause such injury on the person of Radhe which could have caused death has been established by the prosecution. (5) The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt on account of the plea of alibi as according to him he was in the village Chhingha at the time of the alleged occurrence which fact finds support from the statement of PW 4 Faguna (Para 6) and Para 3 of statement of PW 8 Jhurha. These statements find corroboration from the statement of DW i Ramswarath Singh. These statements find corroboration from the statement of DW i Ramswarath Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the F. I. R. version, one tangi blow was given behind the neck whereas from the medical report Ex. Pi-d is clear that there was one injury below the neck and above the shoulder on the occipital protuberance and the size of the injury was 2_h/2t1 x it x 1_h/2t1 and it was an incised wound. It is further submitted that the injury report further mentions that the portion of the lung was visible and the injury was described as dangerous to life. ( 6 ) THE question is regarding the reliability of the medical report and whether the medical report corroborates the prosecution version. The injury is on the occipital protuberance and seeing the dimension of the injury, it could not be possible that such an injury at such a place would make the visibility of the lung. In this connection, a reference may be had to the Text of Anatomy Course, Descriptive Course Applied, 3ist Edn. where the Skull is dealt with at page 252. A photocopy of page 252 of that Book is attached with this judgment, which will form a part of this judgment. The external occipital protuberance is shown at the rear of the head by the side of the neck. A picture of the skull is shown in the said page. On seeing the picture, it is not probable that the injury as found and the injury as alleged would result in the visibility of the lung. The medical evidence as such does not at all support the prosecution version. In such a situation, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. It is therefore, held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt in the context of the medical evidence which contradicts the prosecution case. ( 7 ) SINCE the first point as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant succeeds, it is not necessary to deal with other points, which otherwise have much substance. ( 8 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 307, I. P. C. is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail-bonds are cancelled and the surety is discharged. The appellant need not surrender in the present crime. Appeal allowed. .