JUDGMENT 1. - By this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment of trial court dated 15.4.91 whereby the trial court has convicted the appellants Nem Kumar and Mahavir @ Pappu for the offence u/s. 307 IPC and Radhey Shyam for the offence u/s. 304/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine undergo further one month R.I. 2. On 28.5.82 at 4.15 p.m. one Ramesh Kumar lodged a written report at Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur to the effect that complainant Ramesh Kumar was married to Kumari Saroj daughter of Banwari lal Agrawal, about two and half month ago. It was alleged in the report that on account of dowry accused-appellants, became angry with him, who happen to be father and brother of complainant, they asked to complainant Ramesh Kumar to bring dowry Rs. 35,000/- from his father-in-law. When he refused to do so they became angry. On 28.5.92 in the morning the father & mother of complainant came and asked him as to why he opened separate shop. After some time accused-appellants Mahavir and Radhey Shyam came at his shop and abused him. The neighbours came to intervene but both the accused-appellants gave threatening of dire consequences. After some time on 28.5.82 while Ramesh Kumar and Siya Ram were coming on scooter No. RRB 6821 from the house of Siya Ram to the shop of complainant at about 4.15 p.m. near Ayurvedic college they found that accused-appellants were standing on road along with cycles. On seeing the complainant and Siya Ram, Radhey Shyam gave a lathi blow infront of the scooter as a result of which complainant and Siya Ram fell down from the scooter. Mahavir told that Ramesh will be finished. On this Nem Kumar father of the complainant inflicted knife blow in the abdomen of Siya Ram, Mahavir inflicted knife below on the abdomen of Ramesh and Radhey Shyam inflicted lathi blow on the left foot of Ramesh Kumar. Ram Narayan, Kallu Musalman and Manak Chand Jain and other persons witnessed this incident. 3. On this report the police registered the FIR (Ex.P 19). During the investigation four pairs of chappals, 2 cycles and 1 scooter RRB 6821 were seized from the place of incident. Sight-plan was prepared. The injured were taken to hospital. Ram Narayan, Kallu Musalman and Manak Chand Jain and other persons witnessed this incident. 3. On this report the police registered the FIR (Ex.P 19). During the investigation four pairs of chappals, 2 cycles and 1 scooter RRB 6821 were seized from the place of incident. Sight-plan was prepared. The injured were taken to hospital. The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the challan has been filed. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The statements of accused-appellants came to be recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-appellants denied the allegations and stated that they have been implicated falsely, due to enmity. After considering the material on record the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforementioned. Being, dissatisfied with the judgment of trial court, the accused-appellants filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Biri Singh has submitted that father-in-law of the complainant is an Advocate, therefore he has falsely implicated the accused appellants in this case. The injured Ramesh and Siya Ram were examined by the doctor, their injury-reports are Ex.D-13 and D-16, no definite opinion has been expressed by the doctor. The depth of the injuries have not been shown. It is also not mentioned in the reports that when the complainant was admitted and when he was discharged. Even the eye witnesses mentioned in the FIR are not examined. Recovery witnesses have been declared hostile. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as per the report the operation was conducted on 25.5.82, but the operation note (Ex.D-12) is prepared by the doctor on 9.6.82 only on the basis of memory. Therefore, there is no sanctity of such operation note, which is prepared after 15 days from the date of the operation, that too on the basis of memory, in cross examination the doctor Dinesh Jindal has admitted that the operation note is not in his hand-writing and who prepared the operation note he does not know, even he is not sure whether he has operated injured Ramesh Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Singh has also submitted that P.W. 18 Hanuman Singh; the enquiry officer admits that during investigation Ram Narayan & Manak Chand have not supported the case of complainant, therefore, their statements were not recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that during enquiry the SHO enquired from Manak Chand, he said that Banwari lal has connected Manak Chand but he said that he will not give false statement against the appellants. Even the statements of H.K. Chobisa, Asstt. Director, who is immediate senior officer of Nem Kumar, were recorded. He stated that accused Nem Kumar was in the office on the day of incident from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. since 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. he was in his chamber. 7. The facts are not in dispute that only Ramesh Kumar and Banwarilal who is father-in-law of injured Ramesh Kumar have supported the case of prosecution. Even the statement of eye-witnesses, named in FIR, have not been recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. No independent witness has supported the case of prosecution. Even the recovery-witnesses Pw. 8 Ram Kishore and Pw. 12 Mukand Lal have been declared hostile as they have not supported the recovery made by the police. 8. No blood has been found by the FSL on the knife which was recovered vide Ex.P-22. It is also admitted fact that there was enmity between the complainant and accused-appellants, who happen to be brothers and father of the injured Ramesh Kumar. 9. The prosecution case is that the complainant has not brought dowry from his father-in-law Banwari lal, therefore the accused-appellants were angry and they caused injuries to complainant Ramesh Kumar & Siya Ram. It is also not in dispute that no depth of injury in injury-reports Ex.D-13 and Ex.D-16 has been shown. I have also perused the operation-note Ex.P-12. A perusal of the operation-note shows that there are cutting and over- writings on the note, even the name initially written on the note has been struck of and then the name of injured has been shown. Pw 16 Dr. Dinesh Jindal has admitted that he has prepared the EX.D-12 on the basis of memory on 9.6.82 while the operation was conducted on 25.5.82. If we ignore the operation note no case is made out for conviction of the appellants under Sec. 307 IPC. 10. Pw 16 Dr. Dinesh Jindal has admitted that he has prepared the EX.D-12 on the basis of memory on 9.6.82 while the operation was conducted on 25.5.82. If we ignore the operation note no case is made out for conviction of the appellants under Sec. 307 IPC. 10. Whether the injury was simple or grievous this cannot be ascertained from the injurv-report because no depth of injuries has been mentioned in the injury report. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to answer the specific quarry put to him by the Court as to when the injured Ramesh Kumar and Siya Ram were admitted in hospital and if so when they were discharged from the hospital? Similarly the eye-witnesses named in the FIR have not been examined, as they refused to give false statements against the appellants. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that complainant and his father-in-law, who is an Advocate, have falsely implicated the accused-appellants in this case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, no conviction can be sustained.In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellants is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender to their bail bonds. The bail-bonds are hereby cancelled. *******