R. C. CHAVAN, J.:- Being aggrieved by his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code and the resultant sentence of imprisonment for life and fine imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, the convict has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts, which led to the prosecution of the appellant, are as under: 3. The appellant was running a ration shop at Village Satara Tukum. Villages Satara Tukum, Satara Komti and Satara Bhosale have one Gram Panchayat. Victim Nadarkhan was the Police Patil of the Village. Nadarkhan had made a report to the Food Supply Officer about non-distribution of ration to ration card holders from the shop of the accused. On 10-03-1995 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused beat up Nactarkhan, lifted him and carried Nadarkhan from Satara Komti to Satara Tukum and on the way, caused serious injuries to Nadarkhan. Nadarkhan's daughter Ruksana came to know of the injuries sustained by Nadarkhan and caused him to be taken to the hospital. She also informed the police, whereupon an offence was registered. 4. Nadarkhan succumbed to injuries on 18-03-1995. After an inquest, his body was sent for post mortem examination. In the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, arrested the accused, seized incriminating articles, sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation, sent the charge-sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, to whom the case was assigned, charged the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The appel1ant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Upon consideration, of their evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the charge was proved and, therefore, proceeded to convict the appellant of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, or in default to undergo RI for further period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, the convict has appealed. 6. We have heard Adv. Ms. Murthy, holding for Adv. Aggrieved thereby, the convict has appealed. 6. We have heard Adv. Ms. Murthy, holding for Adv. Shri Anjan De, on behalf of the appellant, and Shri. D. B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have examined the entire evidence on record in the light of the grounds of appeal raised in the memo of appeal and the arguments advanced. 7. The evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Kamdi, who conducted post mortem examination, would show that the victim had suffered as many as 22 surface wounds resulting in fracture of skull and haematoma under the scalp and inside the brain. According to Dr. Kamdi, the victim died due to intra cranial haemorrhage due to injuries to the brain. The nature and extent of injuries mentioned in the notes of post-mortem examination at Exhibit 45 proved by P.W.IS Dr. Kamdi would leave no doubt that the injuries were inflicted decidedly with the object of causing death and were homicidal in nature. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, drew our attention to the evidence of P.W.17 Dr. Daware, who had examined the victim, when the victim was alive, immediately after the incident on 11-03-1995. Dr. Daware had, however, found that there were only 4 surface wounds, as mentioned in his certificate at Exhibit 41. He was categorical in his cross-examination that he did not notice any other injury. The learned counsel for the appellant wondered as to how 4 injuries noticed immediately after the incident translated into 22 injuries observed at the time of post mortem examination. She submitted that it would, therefore, follow that the authorship of the injuries could not be attributed to the appellant, even if it is taken that just before the examination by P.W.17 Dr. Daware, the appellant had participated in an assault on the victim. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also at a loss to explain this apparent irreconcilability in the evidence of two doctors. 9. P.W.I Dewaji, P.W.3 Keshao, P.W.4 Shrawan, P.W.6 Vishweshwar, P.W.7 Govinda and P.W.9 Pradip, all of whom have been declared hostile, state only that the victim and the accused were together before the incident. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also at a loss to explain this apparent irreconcilability in the evidence of two doctors. 9. P.W.I Dewaji, P.W.3 Keshao, P.W.4 Shrawan, P.W.6 Vishweshwar, P.W.7 Govinda and P.W.9 Pradip, all of whom have been declared hostile, state only that the victim and the accused were together before the incident. Some state that the accused was abusing the victim, some state that the abusing was in a friendly manner and some say that the accused and the victim were going arm-in-arm without any apparent sign of a quarrel. 10. P.W.10 Ajjubkhan, victim's son, and P.W.13 Ruksana, victim's daughter, who had reported the matter to police, also do not speak about any previous enmity between the accused and the victim, which could have led the appellant to launch a murderous attack on the victim. 11. P.W.11 Narayan, Supply Inspector, does not state of any complaint by the victim against the accused in respect of the ration shop. He stated that the complaint was by one Ravindra Bhadke. 12. The other witnesses examined are P.W.2 Bapu, P.W.8 Dashrath, P.W.14 Kadarkhan, all panchas; P.W.12 PSI Gave, P.W.15. Head Constable Khandale, P.W.16 PSI Bhondekar and P.W.19 ASI Kakade. They do not throw any new light on the manner in which the incident could have occurred. 13. It seems that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by the fact that P.W.1 Janardhan, P.W.3 Keshao, P.W.4 Shrawan, P.W.6 Vishweshwar, P.W.7 Govinda and P.W.9 Pradip had stated that they had seen the accused and the victim together prior to the incident in changing moods. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, found that though no motive was established, yet an irresistible inference flew that it was none other than the accused who had injured Nadarkhan, since the victim was in the company of the accused. He had referred to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory to support such a conclusion. The report of the Laboratory at Exhibit 57 shows that the victim's blood group was "B" and the pant seized from the accused bore stains of blood group "B", which, according to the learned Trial Judge, the accused had failed to explain. He had referred to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory to support such a conclusion. The report of the Laboratory at Exhibit 57 shows that the victim's blood group was "B" and the pant seized from the accused bore stains of blood group "B", which, according to the learned Trial Judge, the accused had failed to explain. Since the blood group of the accused could not be ascertained, as may be seen from the report of the Laboratory at Exhibit 58, this finding is not significant and itself inadequate to provide any link to connect the accused to the crime. The stains had been found on the pant of the accused, which was seized from the accused vide Exhibit 23 on 15-03-1995, when the accused was arrested on 13-03-1995 vide Exhibit 21 in respect of an incident which took place on 1003-1995. It is incredible that if the accused had indeed committed the offence, he would allow a pant having stains of blood to remain with him to provide evidence to the prosecution. Therefore, in our view, this circumstance is grossly inadequate to provide any link between the injuries on the victim and the appellant/accused. 14. Refusal of the hostile witnesses to state anything beyond having seen the accused with the victim would not permit the learned Trial Judge to infer what witnesses had not stated. It was, therefore, not permissible to infer that the accused was the author of injuries on the victim, which led to victim's death: 15. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and acquit him of the said offence. Consequently, the resultant sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon him is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the appellant shall stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.