JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.—The present appellant Tarlok Singh was charged uncle section 302, I. P. C. for committing the murder of one Shri Duni Chand on 17th May, 1992. After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The trial Judge also ordered that the entire amount of fine, if recovered, would be paid to the widow of the deceased by way of compensation. 2. As per prosecution case, the long standing enmity between the family of the accused and the deceased has been attributed to be the motive of the offence. The accused and the complainant were having their residential houses situated adjacently. The prosecution case, as put up, has been that on 17th May, 1992 this Duni Chand deceased went to the house of the accused. Immediately after the deceased having entered into the house of the accused, some sound of falling was heard by Smt. Hima Devi (PW 4), who at that particular time had gone out of the house for fetching water. This lady was residing alongwith her family in the half portion of the house where the accused was residing with his family Her husbands elder brother, Jagdish Chand (PW 5), who was also residing in that house, was informed by Hima Devi about the sound she heard. Jagdish Chand went to the spot inside the house of the accused, he found Duni Chand lying dead there and as a consequence thereof he raised an alarm Villagers gathered there. Prabhu Ram (PW 3), Keshav Ram (PW 6) went to the house of Pradhan Gram Panchayat Lachhi Dhar (PW 1) alongwith one Indar Singh. They informed the Pradhan at about 11.00 at night about the occurrence. The Pradhan asked those persons to make a report in writing, which report Ex. PA was written by the Pradhan himself and was signed by the aforesaid persons. Thereafter, the Pradhan sent those persons to the house of Up-Pradhan Bali Ram (PW 2) alongwith letter Ex. PC. The Pradhan made a note on Ex PA pertaining to the information given to him. Thereafter, the Up-Pradhan alongwith other persons, referred to above, came back to the house of PW 1, Lachhi Dhar Pradhan. Thereafter, the Pradhan sent those persons to the house of Up-Pradhan Bali Ram (PW 2) alongwith letter Ex. PC. The Pradhan made a note on Ex PA pertaining to the information given to him. Thereafter, the Up-Pradhan alongwith other persons, referred to above, came back to the house of PW 1, Lachhi Dhar Pradhan. Thereafter, as per prosecution case, they went to the house of the accused alongwith ward member Lachhman. Shri Tek Singh, father of the accused, was there. The room of the house was locked which was got opened by the accused and his mother, Smt. Roma Devi. It was found that Duni Chand was lying there with his face downward in a pool of blood with injuries on his head The Pradhan thereafter took two locks and locked all the rooms and asked the Up-Pradhan Shri Bali Ram to preserve the spot and he himself alongwith Indar Singh and Kashmir Singh went to the Police Station, Sarkaghat, where F. I. R. Ex. PD was recorded at 10-30 a m. on 18-5-1992 The occurrence, as recorded in the F. I. R. Ex. PD, is alleged to have taken place at about 8.00 p. m. on 17th May, 1992. 3. The investigation was conducted and after preparing the inquest the Investigating Officer took various articles from the spot, including some blood stained hair of the deceased. Darat Ex. P-6 was alleged to have been produced by the accused which also contained some blood alongwith some hair. The post-mortem was conducted by PW 12, Dr. Ramesh Chauhan, on 19th May, 1992 at 1.30 p. m. and on the basis of the opinion of the doctor the deceased died due to brain damage caused by injury No. 1, as described at page 2 of the post-mortem report under the head ‘Cranium and spinal cord. The doctor took some parts of stomack, small intestines, heart, liver, spine, Kidney in different jars which parts were sent for chemical examination and on the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner it was revealed that alcohol particles in small intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and heard were found. According to the postmortem report Ex. PD, the probable time that elapsed between injury and death was instantaneous while between death and post-mortem was between 24 to 48 hours. On the basis of the report received from Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. According to the postmortem report Ex. PD, the probable time that elapsed between injury and death was instantaneous while between death and post-mortem was between 24 to 48 hours. On the basis of the report received from Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PS on record, various articles taken into possession from the spot were found to be having blood on those articles while human blood was found in earth, bamboo basket, pieces of bone, Darat, Pajayama, under-wear, undervest and Dupatta. Blood on the hair of the head of the deceased was found to be of human origin but it was found to be insufficient for other tests. No blood was found on the trousers of the accused. As per result of the microscopic examination the hair of the head of Duni Chand deceased and the hair found on the Darat were the same and, as per report, those hair were found to be human hair. As per Ex. PT, liquor contents were found in the stomach, intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and heart of the deceased 4. As per prosecution case, put up before the trial Judge, the entire case was based upon the circumstantial evidence as during investigation no witness had given ocular account of the occurrence. 5. The aforesaid conviction has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as for the State and have very minutely scrutinized the entire evidence. 7. In a case of present nature, where it solely depends upon the circumstantial evidence, how that evidence has to be appreciated to base conviction, has been dealt with by the apex Court as well as by this Court in various cases. State of H. P. v. Raj Kumar and another, 1994 Cri LJ 894, can safely be referred to in this particular behalf, in which case the decisions given by the apex Court have been discussed and referred. Para 16 of the judgment in State of H. P v Raj Kumar (supra) is being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience : "16. The prosecution case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence chain of circumstances must be proved completely. If the facts that from a chain of circumstances inescapably point to the guilt of the accused only then he can be convicted and not otherwise. The prosecution case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence chain of circumstances must be proved completely. If the facts that from a chain of circumstances inescapably point to the guilt of the accused only then he can be convicted and not otherwise. The tests to be applied for determining whether circumstantial evidence should lead to the conviction of the accused have been authoritatively laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court. These tests are: 1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sough to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. 2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else ; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence " 8. In order to apply the aforesaid tests to the present case, the circumstances, alleged to have been proved during the trial against the accused, have not only to be appreciated but carefully taken note of to ascertain the leaglity of the order of conviction, under appeal, and for that purpose the evidence has to be scrutinized. 9. The prosecution during the trial examined as many as 14 witnesses. This included the witnesses who reached the spot just after the occurrence ; medical evidence and the police officials, who investigated the case and who were associated during the investigation. One of the witnesses, Jagdish Chand (PW 5), has given an eye-witness account of the occurrence also But the version given by him has not been relied upon by the trial Court as well as by the State counsel, in so far as ocular account of the version given by him is concerned. Prabhu Ram (PW 3), Keshav Ram (PW 6) are the witnesses, who alongwith Indar Singh, just after the occurrence, went to report the matter to PW 1, Shri Lachhi Dhar Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat. Prabhu Ram (PW 3), Keshav Ram (PW 6) are the witnesses, who alongwith Indar Singh, just after the occurrence, went to report the matter to PW 1, Shri Lachhi Dhar Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat. These three persons, S/Shri Prabhu Ram, Keshav Ram and Indar Singh, made a written report Ex. PA to PW 1 which, according to PW 1, was scribed by him and was signed by the three persons, named above, who, according to the prosecution case, could not write In this Ex. PA it was reported to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat that Shri Duni Chand son of Shri Megh Singh has been done to death by the family of Tek Singh and those persons have kept the dead-body of the deceased in their house. It was also reported that the parents of Duni Chand were not at their residence and these persons came to know when some noise was heard by them that Duni Chand has been killed. Through this Ex. PA these three persons requested the Pradhan to visit the spot alongwith other members of the Panchayat and do the needful. 10. It is in the statement of PW I as well as in the statements of PW 3, Prabhu Ram and PW 6, Keshav Ram that the Pradhan sent a letter Ex. PC, though them, to the Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat, PW 2, Shri Bali Ram, which letter was delivered by these persons to PW 2 who alongwith these persons reached at the house of PW 1 from where all these witnesses proceeded towards the spot. 11. It has come in the statements of all these witnesses—PW 1, Lachhi Dhar, PW 2, Bali Ram, PW 3, Prabhu Ram and PW 6, Keshav Ram—that at the spot they saw Tek Singh and one Jatia Ram sitting there and some women were weeping. The room was locked which was opened by accused Tarlok Singh and his mother Smt. Rooma Devi. All these witnesses saw the dead-body of the deceased lying in the room with its face downward and the body was seen in a pool of blood with injuries on the back side of the head. PW 1, thereafter, procured two locks from the neighbours and locked all the rooms and asked PW 2 and Ward member to keep vigil on the house. PW 1, thereafter, procured two locks from the neighbours and locked all the rooms and asked PW 2 and Ward member to keep vigil on the house. Thereafter, according to this witness (PW 1), he and Indar Singh with Kashmir Singh went to Police Station Sarkaghat to report the matter. The F. I. R, on the basis of Ex. PA and Ex. PB, was registered which was Ex. PD on the record. Ex. PB was the endorsement of PW I, Lachhi Dhar, Pradhan on Ex. PA. In this endorsement Ex. PB it was noted by the Pradhan how the report was made to him vide Ex. PA and how at the spot he came to know about the presence of the dead-body in the room and also it was recorded in this endorsement Ex. PB that Prabhu Ram (PW 3) disclosed that Duni Chand deceased was killed by the family members of Tek Singh. 12. After the matter was reported to the police on 18-5-1992 at 10-30 a. m. at Police Station, Sarkaghat, which was situated about 35 K. M. away from the place of occurrence, the police visited the spot and conducted investigation- All these witnesses were associated in the investigation of the case. The police took into possession blood stained soil, hair of the deceased, broken pieces of bottle which was having a label of xxx rum, one Darat, which was handed over to the police by the accused. Ex. P-l was the basket while Ex. P-2 were the three broken pieces of glass. One Chappal Ex. P-3 that of the deceased was also taken into possession. Ex P-4 was the blood stained soil. All these articles were taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PE, which was signed by these witnesses. Ex. P-5 were the hair of the deceased, which were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. Darat Ex. P-6 was produced by the accused, which was also taken into possession during investigation. Ex. PH was the sketch of the Darat The recovery memos of Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 were Ex. PF and Ex. PG respectively. Ex P-7 Pant and Ex. P-8 vest were also taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PJ. 13. The police prepared inquest Ex. PL and also took into possession some compromise effected between the parties, which was Ex. PM on the record. 14. P-5 and Ex. P-6 were Ex. PF and Ex. PG respectively. Ex P-7 Pant and Ex. P-8 vest were also taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PJ. 13. The police prepared inquest Ex. PL and also took into possession some compromise effected between the parties, which was Ex. PM on the record. 14. PW 1, during cross-examination stated about some previous occurrences, which took place between the parties, depicting the enmity between them. According to him, the matter was compromised vide memo. Ex. PM which is dated 20-4-1992 and to this compromise the parties had been Tek Singh on the one hand, who is father of accused Tarlok Singh, and Duni Chand deceased and Jagdish Chand (PW 5) on the other hand. They agreed that they had compromised the matter and will not indulge, in future, in any dispute. They have also agreed that they would not visit each others house illegally. 15. PW 3, Prabhu Ram, in addition to the aforesaid facts, stated, on oath, that on the day of occurrence at about 5 00 in the evening he saw accused Tarlok Singh near the tap who told him that he would kill Duni Chand that day. This witness, when was cross-examined on this account, admitted that he did not narrate this fact to any witness he met after the occurrence or after the accused had given such a threat to kill the deceased. It may be noted here that Ex. PA was the information given by other witnesses, including this PW 3, to the Pradhan wherein also this fact had not been noted. Any way the fact remains that Prabhu Ram kept this important fact to himself and did not disclose to the Pradhan or other members of the Panchayat, including the Up-Pradhan. It may be referred here that whatever this PW 3 stated about the threat, alleged to have been given by the accused to kill the deceased, there was absolutely no occasion to have conveyed such a threat through the witness. It may be referred here that whatever this PW 3 stated about the threat, alleged to have been given by the accused to kill the deceased, there was absolutely no occasion to have conveyed such a threat through the witness. Otherwise also, in case such a threat had been advanced by the accused, as a natural consequence thereof, just after the threat, he was to follow the deceased wherever he was in order to fulfil that threat but on the other hand the facts disclosed that the deceased went to the house of the accused and this fact was not at all anticipated by the accused as there was no evidence examined during the trial to that effect. The investigation and the evidence, during the trial, is silent as to what was the purpose of the deceased in visiting the house of the accused at that particular time. Any way, the fact remains that the possibility of this fact of accused giving threat to kill the deceased that very day, through this witness, having been the result of an after thought, cannot be ruled out. 16. It may also be pointed out here that during the cross-examination PW 1, the Pradhan Gram Panchayat, also stated that during investigation it was revealed by the accused that deceased Duni Chand had come to his house with a broken bottle in his hand with a view to kill him. Tarlok Singh accused also stated that the pieces of the broken bottle Ex. P-2 were of the same bottle. PW 2, Bali Ram, also deposed that it was wrong to suggest that during investigation the fact came to light that the deceased, under the influence of liquor, by taking a bottle in his hand was telling that he would finish the family of the accused. He also stated that he could not come to know with what motive Duni Chand deceased had gone to the house of accused Tarlok Singh. It has come in the statements of majority of witnesses that the deceased, as compared to the accused, was physical stronger than the accused Tarlok Singh. 17. PW 4, Smt. Hima Devi, was the wife of Kanhya Lal, brother of Jagdish Chand (PW 5). It has come in the statements of majority of witnesses that the deceased, as compared to the accused, was physical stronger than the accused Tarlok Singh. 17. PW 4, Smt. Hima Devi, was the wife of Kanhya Lal, brother of Jagdish Chand (PW 5). According to her, her husband and his brother were residing together as a joint family and on the day of occurrence she had gone to the fields in the morning alongwith Smt. Shila Devi wife of Jagdish Chand. She also stated that they came back in the evening. According to her, her husband was having a joint house with accused Tarlok Singh. Half of the house was in possession of accused and half was in possession of her husband and his brother. She also stated that she had gone to the water tap situated near her house to bring water while Shila Devi was sitting in the verandah when Duni Chand deceased came from downward and entered the house of Tarlok Singh. She also stated that she heard some noise of falling and she narrated this fact to her husbands brother Jagdish Chand and thereafter Jagdish Chand went to the house of the accused and he saw the dead-body of Duni Chand deceased lying there. She also narrated that Jagdish Chand informed her that Tarlok Singh and his mother had killed Duni Chand and thereafter Jagdish Chand raised alarm that his brother Duni Chand had been murdered. She also stated that when Duni Chand entered the room he was not having anything with him. She is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Her statement can be relevant only to prove the fact of Duni Chand going to the house of the accused which fact otherwise stood established especially when the dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. During cross-examination she disclosed that when she reached the spot she saw one leg of Duni Chand lying on the stair but she did not remember What was lying beside the dead-body of Duni Chand. 18. PW 5 is Jagdish Chand. During cross-examination she disclosed that when she reached the spot she saw one leg of Duni Chand lying on the stair but she did not remember What was lying beside the dead-body of Duni Chand. 18. PW 5 is Jagdish Chand. He has tried to narrate the eye-witness account of the occurrence but the same has not been the case of the prosecution and even during the course of arguments in this appeal the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the eye-witness account given by this witness was not being relied upon by the State and was not the truthful account of the occurrence and on that score at least to that effect his statement was not being relied upon by the prosecution. Whatever may be the value of the version given by this witness has to be appreciated in the background of the surrounding circumstances proved in the case. This witness deposed on oath that Duni Chand was his brother and on 17th May, 1992, at about 5.00 in the evening he came back to his house and at that time his brother Duni Chand was also going ahead of him when he saw Duni Chand going to the house of Tek Singh, the father of the accused. He further added that he went to his house and stayed in the varandah while Shila Devi was also sitting there. He also disclosed that the room of Tarlok Singh, in which the dead-body of Duni Chand was lying, is situated at a distance of 10-12 feet from the place where they were sitting. This witness has been very specific in deposing that when Duni Chand was about to climb the stairs Tarlok Singh gave a blow of axe to Duni Chand and when Duni Chand entered the room of the house of Tarlok Singh the door was open. He also stated that when Duni Chand had fallen down, at that time, Rooma Devi, the mother of the accused, gave a Darat blow on the head of Duni Chand deceased. He also stated that thereafter. He, Hima Devi and Shila Devi had gone to the spot and, according to him, Rooma Devi and Tailok Singh came out of that room from the back door and at that time he raised alarm. He also stated that thereafter. He, Hima Devi and Shila Devi had gone to the spot and, according to him, Rooma Devi and Tailok Singh came out of that room from the back door and at that time he raised alarm. According to this witness, Prabhu Ram came there and they saw the dead-body of Duni Chand which was lying downward He also added that accused Tarlok Singh thereafter came and closed the door from outside and thereafter at night Pradhan Lachhi Dhar, Vice-President Bali Ram, Ward Member Lachhman, Keshav Ram etc. came to the spot and after the Pradhan had inspected the spot, some persons were deployed by the Pradhan to keep vigil at the house of the accused and the Pradhan went to Sarkaghat Police Station to lodge the report This witness also stated about the enmity between the parties. He also stated that in his presence, before the present occurrence, once the accused and his family members had beaten Duni Chand with sticks, though he had not seen the injuries of sticks on the person of Duni Chand. He stated that he did not know whether Duni Chand ever broke open the house of the accused and uprooted electrict wire. He was very specific in deposing, about giving an axe blow by Tarlok Singh accused and Darat blow by Rooma Devi, to the police but such a statement was not recorded in his statement under section 161, Ct. P. C. This witness also stated that in his presence the police has taken into possession Darat Ex. P-6 and one axe but that axe was given back by the police. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had attacked the accused with a broken bottle in his hand. 19. PW 7 is Smt. Mira Devi, the widow of the deceased. She disclosed that on the day of occurrence, when she was giving fodder to the cattle her husband had gone to the house of accused Tarlok Singh and after some time Jagdish Chand raised alarm Mar Diya and thereafter Prabhu Ram came and accused Tarlok Singh asked him to go back and Prabhu went back from a place near the tap. She also stated that when she opened the door she saw her husband with injuries on his head and he was no more She further stated that before that occurrence, once there was a quarrel and injury was caused on the arm of her husband. 20. PW. 8 Shri-Dalip Singh who at the relevant time, was a forest guard. He stated that m the month of February, 1992 he was getting done the plantation and fencing with the barbed-wire when he found 2-3 poles uprooted and he asked Tarlok Singh accused, who at that time was working as a labourer with the witness, as to who had uprooted the poles Tarlok Singh thereupon told the witness that Duni Chand had uprooted the poles According to him 2-3 days thereafter Duni Chand had met him The witness asked from him as to why he had uprooted the poles but Duni Chand had denied the fact. This witness probably has been examined to prove the enmity between the parties; 21. There are certain police officials who have investigated the case or were associated in the investigation. PW 9, Chint Ram L Ho No 322 Police Station Sarkaghat and PW 10, Prem Lal MHC, Police Station Sarkaghat, were the witnesses who were associated in the investigation of the case for sending the various articles for chemical analysis and for keeping those in safe custody in the police station. PW 11is Ashok Kumar Draftsman, HP PWD Sarkaghat, who has prepared the site plan Ex. PN. 22. PW 13 Kuldip Chand, S. I. Police Station, Sarkaghat who has partly investigated the case while PW 14 is Jaisi Ram the then SHO Police Station, Sarkaghat. Both these investigating officers have^ proved various documents coupled with the inquest report and other aspect of the investigation. PN. 22. PW 13 Kuldip Chand, S. I. Police Station, Sarkaghat who has partly investigated the case while PW 14 is Jaisi Ram the then SHO Police Station, Sarkaghat. Both these investigating officers have^ proved various documents coupled with the inquest report and other aspect of the investigation. In so far as PW 14 is concerned, his cross-examination on one of the points is very much relevant wherein he deposed that he could not say whether the bottle pieces which he took into possession were tie same of that bottle which Duni Chand deceased was holding to his hand He further added that in his investigation it has not come that deceased Duni Chand had entered the house of the accused in order to kill him He further added that it did not come in investigation if accused Tarlok Singh and Dun, Chand deceased were sitting together during the day time He further stated that on the date of occurrence the father of the accused was away and his mother was throwing cow-dung in the fields He also stated that he did not know where from the broken pieces of bottle Ex P ? come. The witness stated that it was incorrect to suggest that this fact came m his investigation that the deceased in the state of intoxication by holding a bottle in his hand, challenging to kill the accused and while climbing stairs to enter the house of the accused, fell down 23. PW 12 is Dr. Ramesh Chauhan who inducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased Ex. PO is the post-mortem report given by this witness. On the basis of the final opinion given by this witness, the deceased died due to brain damage caused by injury No 1 as described in page No 2 of his post-mortem report. That specific injury is injury No. 1, as described under the head "Cranium and Spinal Cord" which description runs as under : "(I) 15 cm. long lacerated wound extending from-2 cm. above right car lobule to 4 cm. above the left ear pinna involving occiput 5 cm. wide on right side and 2 cm. wide on left side Brain matter was coming out. long lacerated wound extending from-2 cm. above right car lobule to 4 cm. above the left ear pinna involving occiput 5 cm. wide on right side and 2 cm. wide on left side Brain matter was coming out. Pieces of skull bone were embedded in the brain matter.” Apart from the aforesaid injury there were other injuries observed by the doctor on the person of the deceased which have been described while narrating the external appearance in the post-mortem report. These are as under: "(1) There was a lacerated wound U shape present on dorsum of right head; (2) There was a lacerated wound 2 cm. long on lower half of fore-arm right on ulna ; (3) Abrasion was present on right fore-arm; (4) Lacerated wound was present over the left thumb; (5) There was blood present all over the left upper limb." Under the head Cranium and spinal cord, apart from injury No. I referred to above, there were two more injuries as under: "(2) There was a lacerated wound 11 cm. long from hair line on right side coming towards the mid line just 1 cm. lateral to mid line 2 cm. wide at the centre ; (3) A lacerated wound was present on right side of nose, horizontally placed." The doctor agreed with the suggestion that injury No. 3 at page 2 of the post-mortem report could be caused by a fall in case one was having a bottle in his hand and after fall that bottle breaks. 24. The accused in his defence has denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He stated that deceased Duni Chand entered his house with a broken bottle in his hand while threatening to kill him and his family. He also stated that out of fear, he alongwith his family members went to the second storey of his house and the deceased fell down from the stair-case and struck against Bailu and Darat which were kept by him. The accused also stated that as a result of fall he struck against the wall and broken pieces of bottle also struck on the back side of the deceased and he sustained fatal injuries and died. The accused did not adduce any defence. 25. This is the entire evidence which has come on record. 26. The accused also stated that as a result of fall he struck against the wall and broken pieces of bottle also struck on the back side of the deceased and he sustained fatal injuries and died. The accused did not adduce any defence. 25. This is the entire evidence which has come on record. 26. The trial Judge has also not relied upon eye-witness account given by PW 5, Jagdish Chand, on the sole ground that it was an improvement upon his version given to the police earlier during investigation. He has been influenced to base the conviction by observing that there were strong circumstances on the record of the case to draw that the deceased had been hit repeatedly with a sharp-edged weapon which was a Darat Ex. P-6 in this case. The learned Court further added that the deceased entered the house unprepared and he seemed to have countenanced a brutal assault on him with a sharp edged weapon and it was due to such reason that while warding off the assault, he suffered injuries on the right ulna, right hand, left thumb, occiput, hair line and face with a sharp edged weapon. It was further observed that it seemed that the deceased tried to save himself but due to severe injuries he died instantaneously, as opined by the Medical Officer also. The learned Judge also was of the opinion that the plea of right of private defence did not stand established and the other plea of the accused that the deceased died because of a fall also was not proved. Hence the natural inferences led to proving the guilt of the accused. 27. We think, the aforesaid inferences drawn by the trial Court were not only unwarranted but also not based upon the proved facts on the record. There is nothing on the record to show that the accused gave repeated Darat blows on the person of the deceased. There is also nothing on record to suggest, even remotely, that the deceased in order to ward off the assault suffered on his person. Simply because the accused failed to prove the defence, pleaded by him under section 313, C. P. C , will not prove the guilt against him which is the legal and mandatory obligation cast upon the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Simply because the accused failed to prove the defence, pleaded by him under section 313, C. P. C , will not prove the guilt against him which is the legal and mandatory obligation cast upon the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Jt may be referred here that the trend of cross-examination, conducted on the prosecution witnesses, only was with respect to the defence of fall, taken by the accused in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. There is no doubt that some suggestions had been put to some of the witnesses that the deceased had entered into the house of the accused after taking liquor with a broken bottle in his hand in order to kill the accused and his family members. But this suggestion will not mean that the deceased had died when he was assaulting the accused and the accused while defending his person, inflicted those fatal blows to the accused. Such an inference neither can be drawn from the statement made by the accused nor from the trend of cross-examination. In this view of the matter, the circumstances, referred to above, relied upon by the trial Court were not at all legally proved nor otherwise were legally available, under the law, to base the conviction. 28. On the basis of the evidence examined above the following circumstances can be taken note of to dispose of the present appeal, as per submissions put forth on behalf of the State: (1) The enmity between the parties stood proved and it was in the year 1992 that the matter was amicably settled by the Panchayat; (2) Prabhu Ram (PW 3), just before the occurrence met the accused who gave a threat to kill the deceased at that very time. This circumstance has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, as referred to earlier; (3) The dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. This stood established; (4) The defence taken by the accused not established. Even if for arguments sake, this fact is taken in that context, it will not, in any way, strengthen the prosecution case which has to rest upon its own legs, as weakness of the defence cannot be used as a circumstance against the accused ; (5) Darat Ex. P-6 was having human hair and human blood. 29. Even if for arguments sake, this fact is taken in that context, it will not, in any way, strengthen the prosecution case which has to rest upon its own legs, as weakness of the defence cannot be used as a circumstance against the accused ; (5) Darat Ex. P-6 was having human hair and human blood. 29. All the circumstances, even if taken into consideration, will not at all prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt especially when these circumstances do not qualify the test required to establish the guilt against the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, as held in State of H. P. v. Raj Kumar (supra). 30. Simply because the enmity has been proved, it will not prove the case of the prosecution. It is a circumstance to be weighed in favour of either of the party in the totality of the circumstances proved during the trial. There is no doubt that the dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused which was occupied not only by the accused but by his father and mother also. It has come in the statement of PW 5 Jagdish Chand that accused and his mother were present in the house at that time and he has been very specific that accused gave a blow with axe while his mother gave a blow of" Darat on the person of the deceased. There is no doubt that this aspect of the statement of this witness is an improvement but that will not, in any way, make the case of the prosecution of a stronger nature. Even if this statement is believed, Darat blow, according to him, was given by the mother of the accused and not by the accused. The mother of the accused has not been tried for any offence whatsoever. At this stage the well established principle of criminal law can safely be made available whereby it has been held by various courts that whenever two versions appear in the prosecution story, the version most favourable to the accused had to be taken into consideration. In the present case the statement of PW 5 Jagdish Chand definitely did not connect the accused with the alleged fatal blow which, according to him was given, by the mother of the accused. In the present case the statement of PW 5 Jagdish Chand definitely did not connect the accused with the alleged fatal blow which, according to him was given, by the mother of the accused. In this view of the matter also, the commission of the offence, as alleged on behalf of the prosecution, by the accused is rendered very much doubtful. 31. There is no doubt, had this been the case of the prosecution that the accused was all alone in his house when it stood proved that the deceased went into his house alive but was later on found dead in his house, and with this background if the accused could not offer any explanation for the death of the deceased, it was very much a circumstance to be weighed against the accused. Needless to say, in the present case, at least, the presence of the accused as well as of his mother in the house at the time of occurrence, has been proved by none-else but by the prosecution evidence itself Moreover, it has been the case of the prosecution, as revealed in Ex. PA and other documents, that Duni Chand was killed by the members of the family of Tek Singh, meaning thereby that it was not the accused alone but somebody else who was responsible for the death of the deceased. Any way the fact remains that accused Tarlok Singh was not all alone in his house when Duni Chand died there but the house was occupied by other persons also, more so by his mother at that particular i time, though some of the witnesses stated that she was out of the house in the fields. In case the accused was all alone, he was then required to give an explanation regarding the death of the deceased and in case that explanation was found to be false, definitely it was an important circumstance, to be taken note of against the accused, if the death was proved to be homicidal. 32. The doctor in the post-mortem examination report has described the fatal injury to be a lacerated wound which could be caused by Darat Ex. P-6. The sketch of Darat Ex. P-6 produced on record does not indicate that it was a blunt weapon. But on the other hand excepting at one place, the side used for cutting, the shape of Darat Ex. P-6. The sketch of Darat Ex. P-6 produced on record does not indicate that it was a blunt weapon. But on the other hand excepting at one place, the side used for cutting, the shape of Darat Ex. P-6 is shown to be uniform. Lacerated wounds are produced by blows from blunt objects and missiles, by violent falls on sharp and hard projecting surfaces while on the other hand an incised wound is produced by sharp cutting instruments, such as, knife, razor, scissors, sword, chopper, axe, hatchet scythe or any object which has a sharp, cutting pointed or linear edge. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the injury by Darat Ex P-6 could be in the form of incised wound which, in the present case, was not there and, therefore, the doctors opinion that the fatal injury was caused by Darat Ex. P-6 was not to be relied upon. We think, to draw such an inference the material is not before the court especially when the doctor has not at all been cross-examined on this score. Otherwise also this point may not be very much relevant inasmuch as the circumstances referred to above and established during the trial do not prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt especially when, at the first instance, those circumstances which stood legally proved, if taken together, will not, in any manner, lead to the sole inference that it was the accused and he alone who committed this offence. But on the other hand the circumstances, pointed out above, make the entire case of the prosecution to be doubtful and the benefit, in the circumstances, has to go to none-else but to the accused. The approach of the trial Judge, while appreciating the entire material, does not appear to be legal and natural and on that account the conviction in the present case deserves to be quashed. 33. In view of the foregoing reasons, we accept the present appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the present appellant and acquit him. The appellant, if not required in any other case, is ordered to be set at liberty without any undue delay. 34. The case property be disposed of, as ordered by the trial Court. Appeal allowed.-