JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the 1 learned Sessions Judge, Jalore on 23.7.86 in Sessions Case No. 27/85 whereby the learned Judge has convicted the accused-appellant Chandra Shekhar for offence under section 325 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Onkar Singh for offence under section 325 read with S. 34 I.P.C. of one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months' S.I. and both the appellants have further been sentenced for offence under section 323/34 I.P.C. for three month's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's S.I., the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned PP, I have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as emerges from re-appreciation of evidence is that on 7.8.85 at about 9.30-10 in night when the complainant was passing by the Jalore Govt. Hospital square, the accused came in a tempo and assaulted him. On the basis of the first information report (F.I.R.) lodged by the complainant on these facts, investigation was conducted and the accused were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 307, 325 read with S. 34 I.P.C. Since they were charged for offence under section 307 they were committed to Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore conducted the trial in Sessions Case No. 27/85. He on appreciation of the evidence as recorded by the prosecution, came to the conclusion of guilt and by his judgment impugned, convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction, which is assailed in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally argued before me. 4. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the entire prosecution evidence does not disclose any offence as committed by the accused appellants. There is no evidence much less cogent evidence to prove that the injuries were caused by the accused. 5. The learned P.P. supported the order on the basis of the evidence on record as it stands. 6. The main witness on behalf of the prosecution is P.W. 1 Sardar Singh, who is an injured person. There is no evidence much less cogent evidence to prove that the injuries were caused by the accused. 5. The learned P.P. supported the order on the basis of the evidence on record as it stands. 6. The main witness on behalf of the prosecution is P.W. 1 Sardar Singh, who is an injured person. He has stated that the accused came in a tempo and immediately after alighting from the tempo, started assaulting the accused. He has claimed that the accused Chandra Shekhar hit him on the head with a hammer and the other accused hit him with steel bar. He then states that after he was hit on the head by the hammer by Chandra Shekhar, he was dashed and could not thereafter respond as to which of the accused hit him by steel bars. The witness has then deposed that he was hit on the head by hammer by the accused and the other accused assaulted him by steel bars, but was unable to identify the hits made by any of them. 7. P.W. 2 Kesa Ram is declared hostile. He was witness to Panchanama but has denied to have seen anything. His evidence is inconsequential. 8. P.W. 3 Julfikar Ali is an eye-witness, who has deposed that he saw the accused Chandra Shekhar hitting the victim with hammer on the head and the others assaulting him steel bars. The third eye witness who has been examined as eye-witness is P.W. 4 Samandar Khan. He also stated that the accused Chandra Shekhar assaulted the victim with hammer and the other accused assaulted him with steel bars. P.W. 5 Khushal Singh is Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.W. 6 Hari Kishan is Constable, in-charge, who seized these bloody clothes of the victim and P.W. 7 is Dr. Gumanmal Solanki. He has denied the possibility of the injury being caused by sharp weapon. Obviously the injury caused on the head is not such as can be attributed to hammer only. He is not definite to depose that it was hammer that was used. Thus, when the victim himself has stated as also the doctor that the wound was stitched and the accused was allowed to go home. The doctor undoubtedly has opined that it can be caused by hammer also. There is, therefore, no consistent evidence on record as to the nature of the injury caused by the accused. Thus, when the victim himself has stated as also the doctor that the wound was stitched and the accused was allowed to go home. The doctor undoubtedly has opined that it can be caused by hammer also. There is, therefore, no consistent evidence on record as to the nature of the injury caused by the accused. The eye-witnesses have not attributed any specific act to any individual. Use of the hammer is also doubtful. In such circumstances, the conviction to me seems to be unsafe and unsustainable. 9. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. The accused are already on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed - Conviction set aside. *******