Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 23.12.1987 at about 10 A.M. Shankar Singh was present in the court-yard of his house. Gian Singh and Gurmel Singh were also present with him. Major Singh appellant armed with a kirpan and Kuldip Singh with a Gandasi came in the court-yard. Kuldip Singh raised a Lalkara. Major Singh gave a blow with his Kirpan on the right side of head of Gunnel Singh. Kuldip Singh gave a Gandasi blow from its sharp side on the left side of head of Gurmel Singh. The accused after inflicting injuries ran away from the spot. 2. Dr. Tarsem Singh, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Bilga came into the witness-box as PW I. He medico-legally examined Gurmel Singh injured on 23.12.1987 at 12.05 PM. He found two injuries on the person of Gurmel Singh. Both the injuries were incised wounds and were found to have been caused with sharp edged weapons. These injuries were declared dangerous to life. 3. PW-2 Shankar Singh came into the witness-box and supported the prosecution story. 4. The other witness Gunnel Singh, PW-3 also supported the version given in the FIR. 5. The other witnesses are Dalip Singh, Draftsman, PW-4, Constable Hardas Singh, PW-5, Balbir Singh, attesting witness of disclosure statements, PW-6, Constable Gurmit Chand PW-7 and ASI Paras Ram PW-10. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the State and gone through the statements of the witnesses and the record. 7. The defence version is that some persons with muffled faces came and caused injuries on the person of Gurmel Singh but they could not be identified. The occurrence had taken place early in the morning when the complainant was going to answer the call of nature. Affidavit which is produced as Ex. DA has been sworn by Gunnel Singh before an Executive Magistrate on 27.1.1988. This affidavit has completely absolved the accused and bears thumb impression of Gurmel Singh. The learned trial Court has wrongly observed that Dr. Tarsem Singh PW 1 has given opinion Ex. PE/1 in a very casual manner. 8. The learned counsel for the State has relied on the statements of PW-2 Shankar Singh and PW-3 Gurmel Singh. 9. This affidavit has completely absolved the accused and bears thumb impression of Gurmel Singh. The learned trial Court has wrongly observed that Dr. Tarsem Singh PW 1 has given opinion Ex. PE/1 in a very casual manner. 8. The learned counsel for the State has relied on the statements of PW-2 Shankar Singh and PW-3 Gurmel Singh. 9. The two eye witnesses i.e. Shankar Singh and Gurmel Singh are related to each other and there is no explanation as to why Gian Singh who was also present there and is the Kuram of Shankar Singh was not brought into the witness-box. The statement of Shankar Singh was recorded on 23.12.1987 at 7 P.M. and the formal FIR was recorded at 2.55 PM. Gurmel Singh all along was in a fit state of mind to give his statement. Af.fidavit of Gurmel Singh injured sworn before the Executive Magistrate cannot be brushed aside lightly. He has not completely denied affidavit in his statement. A doubt is created in the mind of the Court, the benefit of which is to be given to the appellants. 10. In the light of above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The judgment/order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.