JUDGMENT 1. - The State has taken this appeal against the acquittal of respondent-Chuniya of the offence under section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali vide his judgment dated 31.7.1978. 2. The prosecution case was that on 23rd August, 1977, a report was lodged by Magiya, uncle of the deceased, that his nephew Kastoora is lying dead on the 'hathai' and that Gomi told him that accused Chuniya @ Jangida had beaten him. On this report, a case was registered. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted challan against the accused-Chuniya. The accused denied to have committed any offence. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. The accused, in his statements recorded under section 313 Cr.PC, stated that the witnesses have given false statements. He examined one witness DW 1 Bhomla in defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, acquitted the accused under section 302 IPC, but convicted him under section 323 IPC. 3. The arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent have been heard and record perused. 4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor is that on the basis of the evidence of PW 14 Dr. Hem Raj Dhariwal, the trial Judge should have held that the deceased had met the homicidal death and that he died because of the injuries sustained by him. He has also taken us through the statements of PW 2 Mangilal, PW 5 Mst. Gomi, PW 6 Kapoora, PW 7 Mst. Dhapu and PW 8 Chhoga. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that they trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the statements of the doctor and no case of murder was made out by the evidence produced in the case. 6. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration. The only point to be considered is whether it was proved on record that deceased had died because of the injuries sustained by him. 7. Dr. Hem Raj Dhariwal (PW 14) has deposed that he had conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of Kastoora and found 12 external injuries on his person and one of them was on his occipital region and because of that injury the eyes of the deceased had become black. He has also deposed that the injuries No. 1 and 2 sustained by Kastoora were grievous in nature. Dr. He has also deposed that the injuries No. 1 and 2 sustained by Kastoora were grievous in nature. Dr. Dhariwal has admitted in his cross-examination that in the report Ex.P. 21 in heading-II 'Cranium and Spinal Cord' he has recorded a. note 'nothing'. It is thus clear that Dr. Dhariwal had not found any fracture on the skull and also did not find abnormality in the brain of the deceased. When in the post-mortem report Ex.P 21, the Medical Officer stated that there was nothing abnormal in the skull or brain of the deceased, it could not be found proved on the basis of the court statement of the doctor that injuries No. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature. A perusal of the report Ex. P 21 leads us to infer that there was no internal injury on the cranium and spinal cord of the deceased. As such, it could not be believed that Kastoora had sustained injuries to his brain. It is also significant to point-out that in the conclusion also Dr. Dhariwal had not stated that the deceased had died because of hemorrhage or shock or coma. A vague statement was recorded that the deceased had died because of the injuries sustained by him. When by the Post-mortem report it does not transpire that Kastoora had sustained grievous injuries on his head and he did not die of the head injuries, it could not be found that he had died because of the injuries sustained by him. It may be stated that all other injuries sustained by Kastoora were simple in nature and they were not on the vital parts of his body. Dr. Dhariwal was cross-examined at length and he, as a matter of fact, could not stand the test of cross- examination on the fact that the injuries No. 1 and 2 of the deceased were grievous and he had died because of those injuries. He could not explain as to why did he not record in the report that there was blood clot on injury No. 1. He has also not been able to state as to which internal part was hurt because of external injury No. 1. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution was not able to prove that Kastoora had died because of the injuries sustained by him. 8. He has also not been able to state as to which internal part was hurt because of external injury No. 1. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution was not able to prove that Kastoora had died because of the injuries sustained by him. 8. The next contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor was that on the basis of the statement of eye- witnesses, it should have been found proved that the accused had inflicted lathi blows on the head of Kastoora. We have carefully read the statements of the witnesses. It may be stated that the learned trial Judge has not relied on the statements of PW 2 Mangilal, PW 6 Kapoora PW 7 Mst. Dhapu and also PW 5 Mst. Gomi on this point that they had witnessed the occurrence. These witnesses, in their police statements, had not stated that they had themselves seen the accused inflicting blows on Kastoora and, therefore, they have been rightly dis-believed on this point. This part of the statements of Mst. Gomi has been believed that the deceased before his death has informed Mst. Gomi that Chuniya (accused) had inflicted lathi blows on him. By this statement, it could not be found proved that the accused had given any lathi blow on the head of the deceased. That being so, there was no evidence on record that the accused had given lathi blows on the vital part i.e. head of the deceased. It is of-course a mystery as to how the deceased has sustained the head injury. However, it has come on record that the accused was seen taking the deceased towards hathai in injured condition. The possibility that the deceased sustained head injury prior to time the accused met him and took him to 'hathai' cannot be ruled out. 9. No other point was pressed before us. 10. After going through the evidence produced in the case, we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the accused under section 302 IPC. 11. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******