JUDGMENT :- This appeal preferred by the appellant/accused Rajesh Gulabrao Lihitkar, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th January, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 474 of 1990, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The facts giving rise to the present prosecution are as under : The appellant/accused and the complainant Rakesh Prabhakar Wagh are the permanent residents of village Umri, Tahsil and District Nagpur. In the village, there is a public tap in front of the house of Shri Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3). The houses of the appellant and the complainant are abutting to each other. On 2nd Nov. 1989, at about 7 a.m. the accused's real sister Ku. Shaila had been to the public tap for fetching water. There were other 4 or 5 girls near the water tap. The complainant Rakesh was also in the queue to fetch water. The complainant kept his vessel for filling water, as he was first in the queue. Shaila, the sister of accused Rajesh tried to keep her vessel on the vessel of the complainant Rakesh, he shifted it aside and told her that the water which he is fetching is for sacred purpose. Ku. Shaila, therefore, went to her house, informed her mother and brother-appellant accused, that she was molested and manhandled by the complainant Rakesh. The appellant/accused and his mother came out of their house. The accused had a knife in his hand. He went to the house of the victim Rakesh. He dealt blows on the person of Rakesh and thereby he received two stab injuries; one on the chest and another on the upper scapular region. Bhaskar Jagtap, Ramchandra Nasre and other males and females assembled near the place of incident. According to the victim Rakesh, as stated in the F.I.R. Exh. 24, he himself snatched the dagger from the hands of the appellant/accused, while in the Court, he deposed that the dagger was snatched by one Ramchandra Nasre. 3. The injured Rakesh was first shifted to the house of his uncle Hanumant Wagh. Thereafter his uncle took him to Bazargaon and from there in the truck to the Police Station Kondhali. 24, he himself snatched the dagger from the hands of the appellant/accused, while in the Court, he deposed that the dagger was snatched by one Ramchandra Nasre. 3. The injured Rakesh was first shifted to the house of his uncle Hanumant Wagh. Thereafter his uncle took him to Bazargaon and from there in the truck to the Police Station Kondhali. He lodged oral report Exh. 24 on the basis of which the police registered offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. The statement recorded on prescribed form is at Exh. 36. The injured was referred to Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kondhali. He issued the Medical Certificate vide Exh. 8 and Exh. 27. The injured Rakesh was also referred to the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. But the prosecution did not lead evidence what has been observed at the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. 4. The weapon i.e. dagger, blood stained clothes of injured Rakesh were seized and thereafter sent to chemical analyser for examination and report. Exh. 25 is the Chemical Analyser's report. According to the report, the dagger had human blood. The shirt of injured Rakesh had also human blood of 'O' group. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge was explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution to substantiate the charge under Section 307, I.P.C., examined injured Rakesh (P.W. 1), Dr. Arvind Dhawal (P.W. 2) Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kondhali, Shri Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3), Smt. Sindhutai (P.W. 4) mother of the complainant Rakesh, and P.H.C. Shri Ruprao Larokar (P.W. 5). 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur, after scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution and considering the defence, held that the prosecution could not prove the case under Section 307 of I.P.C., but established the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The defence, of the appellant/accused is that as there was a quarrel and exchange of abuses between Shaila, her mother Smt. Sindhutai as also the appellant/accused, the complainant Rakesh came out of his house with a dagger. There was a scuffle and in that scuffle and snatching the dagger, injured Rakesh himself received the injuries from his own weapon. 8. The defence, of the appellant/accused is that as there was a quarrel and exchange of abuses between Shaila, her mother Smt. Sindhutai as also the appellant/accused, the complainant Rakesh came out of his house with a dagger. There was a scuffle and in that scuffle and snatching the dagger, injured Rakesh himself received the injuries from his own weapon. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties, I perused the evidence and other documents filed on record. According to Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the entire story of the prosecution is a concocted one. There is no consistency in the coloured statements and the Medical evidence. There is no corroboration at all to the story narrated by Rakesh and other witnesses. The story told by Rakesh is altogether different from the story narrated by his mother Smt. Sindhutai (P.W. 4). Shri Mishra further submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in believing the hostile witness Shri Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3). 9. Rakesh (P.W. 1) stated that while he was in the lane going to the tap, the accused came with dagger and gave blow on his chest. He also gave a blow on his back. After receiving two injuries, he tried to snatch the dagger from the hands of the accused. However he could not snatch the dagger as he was engaged pressing chest injury. One Ramchandra Nasre snatched the dagger from the accused. Several other persons including Ramchandra Nasre, Bhaskar Jagtap and Chandrabhan Moharle were present. It needs mention that according to his oral report Exh. 24 (F.I.R. on prescribed form Exh. 36), there is no whisper that his mother Smt. Sindhutai (P.W. 4) was present on the public tap. Similarly there is no whisper about the place where the alleged, assault had taken place. Sindhutai w/o Prabhkar Wagh (P.W. 4) the mother of Rakesh, deposed in para 2 of her deposition that while she was at the tap, the accused came running with dagger in his hands. One Kamlabai Vaidya obstructed him, but he pushed her and started running. Having seen him, she shouted "Dhaware Bappa." Ramchandra Nasre and Bhaskar Jagtap and others ran towards him and snatched the dagger. It is, thus, clear from her statement that before the assault on her son Rakesh, the dagger was snatched from the hands of the appellant/accused. One Kamlabai Vaidya obstructed him, but he pushed her and started running. Having seen him, she shouted "Dhaware Bappa." Ramchandra Nasre and Bhaskar Jagtap and others ran towards him and snatched the dagger. It is, thus, clear from her statement that before the assault on her son Rakesh, the dagger was snatched from the hands of the appellant/accused. The prosecution has examined the only independent witness i.e. Shri Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3). According to him, he has also not seen the incident of stabbing. However, according to him, when he and Ramchandra Nasre went near the injured Rakesh, they found that the blood was oozing from the chest injury. Accused Rajesh was holding the dagger and the blade of dagger was in the hands of Shaila. Ramchandra Nasre snatched the dagger from the hands of the accused and gave it to him. He and Ramchandra Nasre tried to separate Rakesh from the accused. It is, thus, clear from his evidence too that he has also not witnessed the actual incident of stabbing. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined. 10. Dr. Arvind Dhawal, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kondhali, examined Rakesh on 2nd Nov., 1989 and found following injuries : (1) Incised wound - 1( x 1/4( x 1/8( on the left side of chest, bone deep, oblique. (2) Incised wound 1( x 1/4 ( x 1/4(, bone deep on medial side of right upper scapular region, oblique. (3) Abrasion - 1-1/2( on the left side of neck oblique. below the mandible. (4) Abrasion 1/2 ( x 1/4 ( below the posterior part of left mandible, oblique. According to doctor, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 can be caused by sharp cutting object. It was suggested to doctor whether such injuries could be caused in scuffle and he replied in negative. According to doctor, injuries Nos. 3 and 4 which are arbrasions, could be caused by human nail and due to impact of hard and rough substance. 11. I have reproduced the evidence of the prosecution witnesses above and from this evidence it is crystal clear that the only evidence regarding the alleged incident is of Rakesh Wagh (P.W. 1). 12. Shri Dhote, the learned A.P.P. specifically brought to my notice the portion from the F.I.R. Exh. 11. I have reproduced the evidence of the prosecution witnesses above and from this evidence it is crystal clear that the only evidence regarding the alleged incident is of Rakesh Wagh (P.W. 1). 12. Shri Dhote, the learned A.P.P. specifically brought to my notice the portion from the F.I.R. Exh. 24/36 and the deposition of P.W. 1 in Court to the effect that the complainant Rakesh and the accused are on inimical terms since school days. Admittedly, according to the prosecution itself, Ku. Shaila returned from tap and informed her mother and brother the appellant/accused that the complainant Rakesh molested her. Therefore, it is but natural that he must have been enraged. Under the circumstances, it is but natural for a person of self esteem to redeem the self-respect of the family, stand stigmatised, to determine to accost and confront him accordingly. Extremes of average cannot be attributed to extent of killing. Minor harm may be intended to teach him a lesson. Considering the depth of injury on the chest viz. 1( x 1/4( x 1/8(, it is difficult to believe that the accused went running towards Rakesh with an intention to cause such injury which may prove fatal. 13. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, further rightly submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error in believing the testimony of a hostile witness i.e. Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3). The learned trial Judge in para 10 believed the evidence of Bhaskar (P.W. 3). The wordings are as under : "It may also be noted that this witness initially has not fully supported the prosecution story hence he was declared hostile and during cross-examination conducted by A.P.P. he supported the story to the extent what he had seen. I have already pointed out that his evidence is natural and reliable. There is no legal bar to accept the testimony of a witness who is declared hostile, if his testimony is corroborated by other reliable evidence as held in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 : (1976 Cri LJ 203). According to P.W. 3, when accused was coming from his house, he saw dagger in his hand. However, further he deposed that blow of dagger was already given by the accused on the person of Rakesh. He further admits that the accused had given two blows of dagger. According to P.W. 3, when accused was coming from his house, he saw dagger in his hand. However, further he deposed that blow of dagger was already given by the accused on the person of Rakesh. He further admits that the accused had given two blows of dagger. His police statement was brought to his notice and he denied the portion marked 'A' in his statement. Merely by stating that particular incident was stated to the police or not, will not suffice. Unless and until he deposes to the effect that whatever had been seen by him was stated to the police, it is difficult to believe that there is a corroboration to the version of the complainant Rakesh. No suggestion has been given to P.W. 3 and nothing has been extracted from him. In the case of Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1980) 2 SCC 390 : (1980 Cri LJ 564), their Lordships observed : "Statements made by the witnesses in the course of investigation cannot be used as substantive evidence." 14. According to the prosecution, 4 or 5 other girls were also fetching water on the public tap, besides Ku. Shaila sister of the appellant/accused, and the complainant Rakesh Wagh. None of those girls was examined by the prosecution to extract the event which took place at the public tap. No reason or explanation has been assigned by the prosecution for non-examination of the material witness to illustrate the entire story which had taken place at the public tap. It has been brought to my notice that Ramchandra Nasre who alleged to have separated the accused and victim Rakesh as also snatched the dagger from the hands of the appellant/accused, was neither cited as witness nor was examined by the prosecution. In fact, he was a material witness to depict the incident clearly. Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3) specifically stated that he and Ramchandra Nasre tried to separate Rakesh from the accused. 15. One important aspect regarding which there is no cogent evidence led by the prosecution, is that according to the complainant Rakesh vide F.I.R. Exh. 24, he snatched the dagger from the hands of the accused, while in the evidence he stated that he could not snatch the dagger and, therefore, Ramchandra Nasre snatched the dagger and handed it over to Bhaskar Jagtap. 24, he snatched the dagger from the hands of the accused, while in the evidence he stated that he could not snatch the dagger and, therefore, Ramchandra Nasre snatched the dagger and handed it over to Bhaskar Jagtap. The same was carried to the Police Station and the police seized it vide Exh. 19 from Rakesh. Therefore, Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the accused, has rightly submitted that the dagger belongs to Rakesh, and, therefore, he produced the same before the police. Ramchandra Nasre has not been examined. Probably, he would have given true and correct story. 16. It is further submitted that the complainant Rakesh has not explained the other two injuries i.e. two abrasions one on the left side of neck below the mandible and other below the posterior part of left mandible. According to the doctor, first abrasion could be caused by human nail and the other one could be caused by hard and rough substance. Rakesh deposed about only two injuries and no whisper is there about two other injuries as noticed by the doctor. It is not the case of the prosecution that Rakesh subsequently sustained the other two injuries. No whisper in the entire evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the two abrasions which were admittedly visible being on the neck below mandible. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, both the parties are not straight forward nor giving true story. However, considering the minor injuries, according to me, there must have been a scuffle between the victim Rakesh and the appellant/accused. Smt. Sindhutai (P.W. 4) deposed that in her presence, mother of Shaila came to the tap and started abusing. Her attention was attracted towards the Police statement. She has stated before the police that the accused came there, asked about the whereabouts of Rakesh, abused him and threatened that he would kill Rakesh and ran out towards his house. It appears more probably that the complainant Rakesh, after seeing the accused and his mother abusing him and extending threats, might have brought the dagger with him and accosted the appellant/accused. There must have been a grappling between the two and in that grappling, the injuries noticed by the doctor, must have been caused to the victim Rakesh. It appears more probably that the complainant Rakesh, after seeing the accused and his mother abusing him and extending threats, might have brought the dagger with him and accosted the appellant/accused. There must have been a grappling between the two and in that grappling, the injuries noticed by the doctor, must have been caused to the victim Rakesh. Incised wound is an injury caused by the weapon with a sharp cutting edge when it is tried across the skin. While stab wound is an injury caused by more or less pointed weapon when it is tried in through the skin. and the depth is the greatest dimension. In the instant case, the depth of the wound which was noticed on the chest of the victim Rakesh, is 1/8( and that of on the upper scapular region is 1/4(. So in the grappling and snatching the weapon or to save oneself, such minor injuries are possible. Shri Dhote, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a person who is holding a knife cannot sustain injuries from his own weapon. That depends upon the skill and technique of the person holding the weapon. But, the possibility cannot be ruled out that such injuries can be sustained by the person holding the dagger particularly when the other is trying to save himself and, therefore, resisting the blows. In cross-examination, a suggestion was given to the complainant that he sustained the injuries in the scuffle. However, he denied the same. Bhaskar Jagtap (P.W. 3), who is believed by the trial Court, is admitting the fact of scuffle in para 6 of his deposition. Similarly, in the statement under Section 313, of Cr. P.C., the appellant/accused admitted the scuffle, but amongst his mother, sister and complainant Rakesh. 18. After giving conscious thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it difficult to place reliance on the sole testimony of the complainant Rakesh. There being no corroboration whatsoever to his testimony, his evidence is rejected. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant/accused deserved to be acquitted of the offences charged against him. 19. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 474/90 on 16-1-1992, is set aside. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant/accused deserved to be acquitted of the offences charged against him. 19. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 474/90 on 16-1-1992, is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and set at liberty. His bail bond stands cancelled. If fine is paid by the accused, it be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.