Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge. Udaipur by his judgment dated 6-2-1981 convicted Kanju. Appellant, for the offence under Sec. 307 I. P. C. and sentenced him to four years RI. And a fine of Rs. 300/ -. In case of default appellant was to undergo sentence for six months. He acquitted Ramchandra, Shivraj Singh and Manju who were co-accused persons. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story is that on 16-9-1979 at about 5. 45 p. m. Dalchand reported to the police that the appellant and co-accused persons came in tempo from Surajpole side. His son Narain was surrounded by them and Kanju In flicted serious injuries by knife in the body of Narayan. Police registered a case under Sec. 307 I. P. C. and after investigation challan was presented. The accused-appellant was tried for offence under Sec. 307 I. P. C, and convicted as stated above. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. I have also-gone through the record. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to prosecution story there are three eye- witnesses and they are P. W. 1 Hayat Khan, P. W. 2 om Singh and P. W. 7 Shanti, and the star witness is Narayanlal P. W. 5, injured but their statements are not at all reliable. He has also contended that there is no recovery of knife from the accused-appellant instead it has been recovered from co-accused Ramchandra and the case of the prosecution is that knife had fallen down and the same was picked up by Ramchandra, but this story of fall of knife on the ground is false in view of the statement of P. W. 7 Shanti. He has also contended that there was a cross case and the witnesses have falsely implicated the appellant. He has also contended that Shanti, who is the mother of injured, did not support the case of the prosecution as she has stated that accused appellant was having a stick in his hand and not a knife, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. ( 5 ) FIRST of all. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. ( 5 ) FIRST of all. I will take up the First Information Report because it is the first version of the prosecution. Ex. P. 3 report, was lodged by Dalchand who is not an eye- witness. According to him the story was told by his wife who is the mother of injured. The report tells the story that Narayan was standing in Nehru Bazar near his house. The appellant along with other persons came from the side of Surajpole and Narayan was surrounded. Injuries were inflicted with knife on the body of Narayan by accused-appellant. The F. I. R. also mentions that it were Trilockchand and Manakchand and Shanti who had seen the occurrence. The incident took place because of enmity. Shanti took the injured to hospital and after Narayan was admitted there, Dalchand reported the matter to the police. So according to this F. I. R. it are Trilockchand and Manakchand who are the eye witnesses but P. W. 9 Trilockchand has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated only this much that he heard the noise and he came down and found Narayanlal lying on the ground. He has stated that he did not know as to how Narayan suffered injuries. This witness is the landlord of the house in which Dalchand and his family members live. This witness was also not declared hostile by the prosecution and there is no reason why his statement should be discarded. So the net result from his evidence is that he did not see the occurrence though he was named as an eye- witness in the F. I. R. ( 6 ) MANAKCHAND P. W. 8 has been examined by the prosecution but he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile but even then the prosecution is not able to elicit anything favourable from his evidence. Thus the two eye- witnesses named in the F. I. R, are not supporting the case of the prosecution. ( 7 ) P. W. 7 Shanti, who is the mother of injured, has stated that she had heard the noise and came down from first storey of her house. Thus the two eye- witnesses named in the F. I. R, are not supporting the case of the prosecution. ( 7 ) P. W. 7 Shanti, who is the mother of injured, has stated that she had heard the noise and came down from first storey of her house. In examination-in-chief she did not correctly identify the accused-appellant who was present at the time of her statement on 18-7-1980. She has stated that Narayan suffered an injury on his chest by knife. She has stated even in examination-in-chief that when she came down stairs she found that Narayan was lying on the ground. She being mother was naturally upset. Thereafter she and her landlord took the injured to hospital. Thereafter she went to her husband and narrated the story to him. Her husband came to hospital with her and after seeing the condition of. Narayan went to police station to report the matter. She has admitted in the cross-examination that it was another accused Manju who was having knife in his hand. She has stated that accused-appellant was having a stick in his hand. When there are two versions of the story, the version favourable to the accused-appellant will be read. Therefore, from her statement it is borne out that when she came down stairs she found accused-appellant having a stick in his hand, therefore the accused-appellant could not have inflicted injuries by knife on the body of Narayan. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 2 Om Singh the knife had fallen down on the ground from the hand of the appellant after he had inflicted injuries and the same was mlifted by Ramchandra. The knife. Article 1, was recovered from Ramchandra but the story of fall of knife is falsified from the statement of Shanti P. W. 7 who has stated that knife was not in the hand of accused-appellant but she had seen it in the hand of Manju whom she had correctly identified in the court. It appears from her statement that she did not know the accused-appellant and was not in a position to say as to who had caused the knife injury on the person of Narayan. So the story of the prosecution that she had seen the incident and told to her husband who lodged the report Ex. p. 3 is not correct. It appears from her statement that she did not know the accused-appellant and was not in a position to say as to who had caused the knife injury on the person of Narayan. So the story of the prosecution that she had seen the incident and told to her husband who lodged the report Ex. p. 3 is not correct. It is further strengthened by the statement of Narayan P. W. 5 who has stated that he had not seen his father Dalchand in the hospital. ( 9 ) P. W. 6 Daichand has stated that he had gone to see a friend at Agra Misthan Bhandar where his wife came at about 5 p. m. and told that his son Narayan had suffered injuries whom she had got admitted in hospital. He thereafter reached the hospital and it was Narayan who told him the story. Thereafter he went to the police station and lodged the report Ex. p. 3. When P. W. 5 Narayan himself says that he did not see his father is the hospital at all, statement of Daichand to the effect that Narayan narrated the story to him is further falsified. It appears that there were two groups of miscreants and they used to fight with each other. Narayan belonged to one such group while the accused-appellant belonged to other. But Dalchand P. W. 6 being the father of Narayan and Shanti P. W. 7 being mother wanted to support their son Narayan and. Therefore, the story was cooked up and a case was registered accordingly by the police. Two eye witness. Hayat Khan P. W. 1 and Om Singh P. W. 2, have not been named in the F. I. R. However, their evidence cannot be relied for the reasons stated below. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 Hayat Khan has stated in examination-in-chief that accused-appellant inflicted knife blow on the stomach of Narayan and the second injury was caused by the same knife on the right thigh. His conduct is very strange as he says that since he had no connection with fight of two group he did not intervene and did not try to save. Narayan. He has admitted in cross-examination that appellant Kanju and co-accused Manju were the real brothers and they were related to one Majid with whom this witness was having inimical terms. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. Narayan. He has admitted in cross-examination that appellant Kanju and co-accused Manju were the real brothers and they were related to one Majid with whom this witness was having inimical terms. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 Om Singh, as stated above, has not been named in the F. I. R According to him appellant drew a knife from the pocket of his pant and inflicted two injuries by it on the body of Narayan. He has admitted in cross-examination that he was facing trial in a case of assault by knife on the person of Ramchandra who was co-accused. When Ramchandra and the appellant were of the same, group it was natural that this Witness would depose against the appellant It was suggested that Ramchandra and Narayan both had knives in their hands and injured each other. Ramchandra was definitely having injuries and was operated by P. W. 11 Dr. Hiralal as he has admitted in his crossexamination and Bed Head Ticket of Ramchandra Ex. D. 2 has been proved. Ramchandra, according to him, was admitted in Ward No. 10 at 5. 15 p. m. He suffered penetrating wound on the right postolateral side of lower and upper arm and incised wound on the middle line of upper part of sternum. This very well goes to prove that Ramchandra had suffered injuries during the incident. The story of the defence is that when Ramchandra was going to his shop; Narayan and Om Singh dragged him from the tempo and Narayan while abusing him inflicted knife blows. When Ramchandra caught hold the hand of Narayan it caused injuries to his left arm and during scuftie Narayan suffered the injury on his stomach by his own knife. Later on both of them fell down on the ground and an iron particle caused injury on the thigh of Narayan. ( 12 ) WHEN the witnesses are themselves not supporting the case of prosecution and the defence story is that both parties suffered injuries and it is not established that it was the appellant who inflicted knife blows to Narayan from the statements referred to above, it cannot be said that it was the accused-appellant who caused injuries to Narayan. ( 12 ) WHEN the witnesses are themselves not supporting the case of prosecution and the defence story is that both parties suffered injuries and it is not established that it was the appellant who inflicted knife blows to Narayan from the statements referred to above, it cannot be said that it was the accused-appellant who caused injuries to Narayan. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to Narayan P. W. 3, on 16-9-1979 at about 5 p. m. he was standing outside his house, a tempo came from the Surajpole side and the appellant along with other co-accused persons of his gang came out of it. Kanju, appellant immediately inflicted injury by knife on his person while Manju inflicted injury by a stick. Second injury inflicted by Kanju was on his thigh. His mother came and then accused-appellant as well as co-accused persons ran away. He has stated that nobody came to his rescue. Then he was taken to hospital where he was admitted for ten days. He has stated that he and Ramchandra both are motor mechanics. When he was cross-examined at length he admitted that he was facing trial in four or five such cases. He also admitted that there were casts against him in which allegations were that he had inflicted injuries to Om Singh and Ramchandra. Therefore, this possibility cannot be ruled out that he has implicated appellant on account of previous enmity. Apart from that as I have already stated above there were two factions opposing each other and Narayan belonged to the group while the appellant to the other group. From his evidence nothing comes but as to what had happened at the time of incident, which compelled appellant to inflict knife blow on the person of Narayan. The prosecution is suppressing the genesis. It was suggested to Narayan that he having enmity with Ramchandra stopped him and inflicted injuries on the person of Ramchandra. While it is well proved from the evidence of the prosecution itself that Ramchandra also suffered injuries by sharp weapon and it was operated upon by Dr. Hiralal P. W, 11. He has specifically stated that he did not see his father in the hospital when he was conscious, therefore, the story of the prosecution that it was Narayan who told about incident to Dalchand is falsified. Admittedly both the parties have enimical terms. Hiralal P. W, 11. He has specifically stated that he did not see his father in the hospital when he was conscious, therefore, the story of the prosecution that it was Narayan who told about incident to Dalchand is falsified. Admittedly both the parties have enimical terms. In the circumstances P. W. 5 Narayan cannot be said to be a witness of sterling worth who could be relied for the conviction of the appellant. ( 14 ) KNIFE has not been recovered from or at the instance of accused-appellant. It was Ramchandra at whose instance a knife is said to have been recovered. The knife is Article 1 and had blood stained. It was recovered on 2610-1979 and even then it was stained with blood. However. P. W. 10 Champalal and P. W. 3 Virendra Pal Singh who investigated the case do not state that it was sent for chemical examination. There is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory about group of blood with which knife. Article 1 was stained. It has not been recovered from the accused-appellant and the story that the knife was picked up by Ramchandra from the ground is falsified from the evidence. ( 15 ) THERE is no doubt about it that Narayan suffered injuries and they were examined by P. W. 4 Dr. Dungar Singh Choudhry but when the prosecution has not been able to prove that it was accused appellant who caused the injuries, the accused appellant deserves acquittal. ( 16 ) THE result is that the appeal succeeds. Accused-appellant Kanju is acquitted from the charge of offence under Sec. 307 I. P. C. Fine, if deposited, will be refunded. The accused-appellant is on bail and his bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appeal allowed.