JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, dated 26.4.86 in Sessions Case No. 26/85, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned PP I have perused the record and re-appreciation the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as emerge from re-appreciation of evidence is that a First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged in Police Station, are Raisinghnagar, stating that there was a gathering in the dhani of Nand Singh where the accused persons went to collect contribution for defending allotment cases. The victim Ranjha Singh objected to giving of the contribution and wanted accounts of the contribution made earlier. On this there was altercation between the parties and the accused persons left the place. They on the next day assaulted the victim Ranjha Singh and another Sardul Singh. On the basis of this report, investigation was conducted and several persons including the accused, were prosecuted. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. The learned trial Judge acquitted one of the accused Guljar Singh and convicted the others as aforesaid. It is this conviction, which is impugned in this appeal as aforesaid. 4. A perusal of the deposition of P.W. 1 Ranjha Singh victim in this case and who was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons shows that when he was assaulted Jagraj Singh was armed with a 12 bore gun, Guljar Singh had a pistol and others had gandasis. He claimed that he was assaulted by these persons. He is unable to state whether he was hit from the sharp side of the gandasi (axe) or blunt side of the axe but he has said that his arm was severed. PW. 2 Ishar Singh did not corroborate the witness P.W. 1. He also speaks of the accused persons being armed with) guns. He generally corroborates P.W. 1. He is son of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 Khajan Singh is another son of victim Ranjha Singh and he also states that his father was assaulted. All the three witnesses have said that the victim was hit by sword by Puran Singh. He also speaks of the accused persons being armed with) guns. He generally corroborates P.W. 1. He is son of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 Khajan Singh is another son of victim Ranjha Singh and he also states that his father was assaulted. All the three witnesses have said that the victim was hit by sword by Puran Singh. This witness has stated that " mlds ckn lkjnwyflag us esjs firk dh ckag ij xaMklh ekjhA xaMklh esjs firk dh ckag ij mYVh yxh FkhA " He is, therefore, categorical in his statement that the gandasi was used from the blunt side while assaulting his father the victim Ranjha Singh whereas Ranjha Singh P.W. 1 and his another son P.W. 2 Ishar Singh are unable to state how the gandasi was used. 5. P.W. 4 Gyan Kaur is also categorical in her statement that Sardul Singh axed her father in the right arm and the arm was severed. He also speaks of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 being injured. P.W. 5 is Dr. Man Mohan Singh, who examined the victim. He has proved the injuries on the person of the victims. P.W. 8 is Dr. K.N. Markandey, who examined PW. 2 and P.W. 3 for the injuries on their persons. He also proves the injuries on the persons of these two witnesses. 6. P.W. 7 Bakhsheesh Singh is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed that he was the Investigating officer and he has got the medical examination of the victims done as also prepared other investigation papers. 7. It has come on record that a F.I.R. No. 178/84 was also lodged before the police by the accused party. It is pertinent to note that F.I.R No. 177 is lodged by P.W. 2 Ishar Singh regarding assault on Ranjha Singh by the accused persons whereas F.I.R. No. 178/84 which is produced in this case was lodged at the instance of the accused persons complaining of assault on them by the persons named in that F.I.R. It is thus, proved on record that the accused persons also were physically injured and their persons also had injuries for which there is no explanation by the prosecution. 8. 8. From the evidence of the eye witnesses, who are also injured persons, it will be seen that it is a clear case of assault as alleged by them and yet they are not certain as to how the injuries have been caused. A hit to by blunt side of the axe however hard, that assault cannot result in arm being severed. The fact that there was an altercation between the complainant party and the accused party is also proved by the F.I.R. itself wherein it has been stated that the accused persons left the place after demanding contribution and it is then alleged that thereafter visited the is field of the victim and assaulted him. Thus, there was already enmity existing between the parties and injuries have been caused to the person of the accused also. However, no explanation appear whatever on the record by the prosecution for the alleged injuries on the person of the accused. In such cases, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India that where the injuries are on the person of the accused and are not superficial and are not explained at all conviction of the accused persons is not sustainable in law. The latest judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in this regard is reported in Shiv Karan and another v. State of Rajasthan 1998 SCC (Cri) 712 . In this case the failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused was held sufficient to raise reasonable doubt in the complicity of the accused persons, resulting in their being acquitted. In the present case also, the totality of the evidence on record creates such doubt regarding the manner in which the assault took place as also the manner in which injuries were caused and taking into consideration the injuries on the person of the accused, a reasonable doubt is created regarding the entire happening as put regarding the manner in which the incident has occurred. In such circumstances, it is unsafe to convict the accused persons. 9. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused are already on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed-Conviction set aside. *******