JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 32/1983 on 21.12.1983 convicting the accused as under : Each accused u/s. 148 IPC convicted : Sentenced to two years' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to undergo one months' RI. Taju Khan and Ballu Khan each convicted under section 307 IPC and the rest of the appellants each under section 307/149 IPC each sentenced to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo one month's R.I. Sadul Khan also convicted under section 326 IPC and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo one month's R.I. Deendar Khan, Gafoor Khan, Chhotu Khan, Mustak Khan & Peeru Khan : also convicted under section 323 IPC, and sentenced to three months' S.I. All the substantive sentences are to run con currently. this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. On reappreciation of the evidence, it is found that several injuries not superficial in nature on the person of several accused persons have not at all been explained by the prosecution nor is there any evidence to show that these injuries were such as have no connection with the incident which took place on 7.6.1982. 3. The learned counsel for the accused took me throughout the evidence and pointed out that there are several injuries on the body of the accused persons, that they are not superficial in nature and the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating this evidence has totally ignored this aspect of the injuries on the body of the accused persons. On perusal and reappreciation of the evidence, I find that the contention that there are several injuries on the person of several accused which have not been explained by the prosecution and the injuries are not superficial in nature and the injuries are not unconnected with the incident alleged. 4. Heavy reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court by the learned counsel, the latest being one Shiv Karan & Anr. 4. Heavy reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court by the learned counsel, the latest being one Shiv Karan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 SCC (Cri.) 712 wherein, the Supreme Court has observed that where no explanation is offered by the prosecution explaining injury on the person of the accused persons and the nature of injuries is proved to be not superficial, the accused persons in such circumstances are entitled to benefit of doubt. The observations of the Supreme Court are noteworthy : "2. Detailed facts of the case need not be stated as this appeal must succeed on the ground that even though the evidence on record establishes that three of the accused persons sustained a number of injuries in the incident no explanation was offered by the prosecution as to how they sustained those injuries. Indeed, the appellant-Shiv Karan sustained four injuries and accused-Sonki three, one of which was a lacerated wound measuring 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone-deep on the left parieto-occipital region of the scalp, and the appellant-Sita Ram sustained one lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm also on the parieto-occipital region of the scalp. While on this point it will be pertinent to mention that the injuries sustained by the deceased were a lacerated wound measuring 7 cm x 1/2 cm x bone-deep on the left parietal region of the scalp and a swelling. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the accused persons in the incident it cannot be said that they were superficial and no explanation was necessary. On the contrary, in facts of the instant case, actions of any explanation offered for the injuries sustained by the three accused persons, including the two appellants, makes the prosecution case suspect and entitles the appellants to the benefit of the reasonable doubt" 5. I have already found above that the injuries sustained by the accused persons are not superficial in nature and it has not been that they were not caused in the incident alleged to have taken place and held proved by the learned trial Judge. In my opinion, therefore, the above case applies squarely to the present case and benefit of reasonable doubt. 6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. In my opinion, therefore, the above case applies squarely to the present case and benefit of reasonable doubt. 6. In the result, 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. *******