JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shiv Shanker, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.1981 in S.T. No. 257 of 1979 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307, I.P.C. to seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, there is one year’s R.I. 2. Brief facts arising out of this appeal are that there was some altercation in between the accused Narendra Singh and injured Shiv Singh (P.W. 3) about 8 or 10 days before the alleged incident in respect of grazing of cattles and on account of it, the accused Narendra Singh and his father Jamadar Singh felt annoyed with the injured Shiv Singh and his brother informant Ratan Singh (P.W. 4). On 18.8.1978 at about 8.00 a.m., injured Shiv Singh (P.W. 3) was returning after seeing off the son of his uncle and when he reached on the Pulia of the Bumba situated in village Sirhaul within the circle of police station Jaswantnagar, District Etawah and when he reached near the field of one Atar Singh near the northern (Patri) of the Bumba, the accused persons came out from the sugar cane crop standing in the field of Atar Singh. Accused Jamadar Singh had an axe with him and he handed over it to his son Narendra Singh pointing him out that Shiv Singh is going and he should be killed and he should not be escaped and by saying it handed over an axe to accused Narendra Singh who attacked upon Shiv Singh with an axe. Shiv Singh tried to defend himself and in doing so he crossed Bumba and went on southern side (Patri) of the Bumba. The accused Narendra Singh followed him and again gave 5 or 6 blows, as a result of which Shiv Singh (P.W. 3) fell down and became unconscious. It is alleged that Ratan Singh informant (P.W. 4) was near the field. He rushed to the scene of occurrence and alongwith him Tara Chand (P.W. 6) and Ram Sanehi (P.W. 7) also reached there. Ram Sanehi (P.W. 7) intervened in the scuffle and during the course of it he also sustained injuries, vide injury report Ex. Ka-4. The accused Narendra Singh then ran away. Ratan Singh (P.W. 4) prepared a written report vide Ex. Ram Sanehi (P.W. 7) intervened in the scuffle and during the course of it he also sustained injuries, vide injury report Ex. Ka-4. The accused Narendra Singh then ran away. Ratan Singh (P.W. 4) prepared a written report vide Ex. Ka-2 and took it to the police station Jaswantnagar where it was lodged on the basis of which a chick report Ext. Ka-5 was prepared and G.D. Entry copy Ext. Ka-6 was made and then Shiv Singh was taken to Primary Health Centre Jaswantnagar where he was medically examined by Dr. Vinod Kumar Jadon medical officer (P.W. 5) vide injury report Ext. Ka-3. 3. Ram Sanehi (P.W. 7) was also medically examined vide injury report Ext. Ka-4. 4. Thereafter Shiv Singh (P.W. 3) was brought to the District Hospital, Etawah where his injuries were X-rayed by Dr. R.C. Sharma medical officer (P.W. 2) who found the evidence of fracture on left side skull in occipita temporal part vide X-Ray report Ext. Ka-1 and X-Ray plates Ext. Ka-1 and 2. S.I. Ram Nath Singh (P.W. 8) conducted the investigation of the case. He visited the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-9 and took sample of blood earth and prepared memo thereof vide Ext. Ka-8. He also took the blood stained trousers Ex. 3, Banyan Ext. 4, T-shirt Ext. 5, Angochha Ext. 6 and 7, Tehmad Ext. 8 and prepared the memo vide Ext. Ka-7. After completing necessary investigation, charge-sheet Ext. Ka-10 was submitted against both the accused persons namely Narendra Singh and Jamadar Singh. After taking cognizance by the concerned Court, the case of both the accused persons was committed to the Court of Sessions where both the accused persons namely Narendra Singh and Jamadar Singh were charged for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was stated in the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that some unknown persons attacked upon Shiv Singh (P.W. 3) in the dark and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The prosecution examined the following witnesses namely Haseen Akhtar X-Ray Technician District Hospital, Etawah (P.W. 1), Dr. R.C. Sharma Radiologist-medical officer (P.W. 2), Shiv Singh injured (P.W. 3), Ratan Singh first informant (P.W. 4), Dr. The prosecution examined the following witnesses namely Haseen Akhtar X-Ray Technician District Hospital, Etawah (P.W. 1), Dr. R.C. Sharma Radiologist-medical officer (P.W. 2), Shiv Singh injured (P.W. 3), Ratan Singh first informant (P.W. 4), Dr. Vinod Kumar Jadon Medical Officer (P.W. 5), Tara Chand eye-witness (P.W. 6), Ram Sanehi eye-witness (P.W. 7) and S.I. Ram Nath Singh I.O. (P.W. 8) in support of its’ case. 5. No any oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused persons in their defence. 6. After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties and evidence on record, accused Janod was acquitted for the said charge levelled against him but the accused Narendra Singh was found guilty for the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. and the trial Court awarded sentences as mentioned above. Thereafter the trial Court’s impugned judgment and order has been challenged by the accused Narendra Singh by filing the present appeal in this Court. 7. Heard arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the whole record as well as the impugned judgment and order. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Shiv Singh (P.W. 3) sustained 5 lacerated wounds, 2 contusions, 1 abrasion, 1 incised wound and one abraded contusion and one fracture was found on the skull injury and thigh injury and another fracture was found on thigh injury. These injuries could be caused by blunt object. Similarly, other injuries like lacerated wounds, contusions, abrasion and abraded contusion could also be caused by the blunt object and the same has been admitted by P.W. 5 Dr. Vinod Kumar. Only one incised wound of sharp edged weapon was found on the body of deceased, wherein P.W. 5 has stated that it is also simple in nature. Therefore, no explanation has been given either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of injured witnesses as well as the statement of eye-witnesses as to how the blunt object injury number in 9 out of 10 received from any blunt object. Therefore, manner of assault is liable to be suspicious. It is further contended that there is material contradictions regarding evidence of all the eye-witnesses as well as the injured witnesses regarding place of occurrence. Therefore, manner of assault is liable to be suspicious. It is further contended that there is material contradictions regarding evidence of all the eye-witnesses as well as the injured witnesses regarding place of occurrence. Someone says that the incident took place in northern patri of Nahar, some one says that it took place in the southern patri of Nahar while someone says that he was beaten at the northern patri of Nahar and he rushed towards southern Patri of Nahar where he was also beaten, where Nahar was full of water according to the site plan. In such circumstances, he could not cross canal in reaching towards southern side of patri of canal. There is no evidence that clothes of injured were wet. On the other hand blood stained clothes were taken by the I.O. in his supurdagi. In such circumstances, there is direct medical conflict. However, the appellant has been convicted wrongly for the charge levelled against him. 9. Learned A.G.A. has urged that there is no medical conflict. One incised wound was also found on the body of injured Shiv Singh which was caused by an axe as stated also by P.W. 5. Therefore, there is evidence on record that he caused an axe injury on the person of injured Shiv Singh. An axe is a heavy cutting weapon, its’ mooth is heavy, by which injuries can be caused from the sharp edged side and blunt object side. 10. In such circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the charge levelled against him. 11. In the present case, P.W. 3 Shiv Singh injured witness, P.W. 4 Ratan Singh informant, P.W. 6 Tarachand eye-witness and P.W.7 Ramsanehi injured witness have been examined in proving the charge levelled against the present appellant, wherein P.W. 7 Ramsanehi did not support the prosecution story in his deposition. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the State Counsel but nothing has come in cross-examination against the present appellant. 12. P.W.-6 Tarachand is also an eye-witness of the incident who may be independent witness but he has stated that marpit took place in northern patri of the said Bumba but he has stated that Narendra Singh appellant assaulted and inflicted an axe injuries on the person of Shiv Singh. Therefore, permission was granted to the State Counsel for cross-examination from these witnesses regarding place of incident. 13. Therefore, permission was granted to the State Counsel for cross-examination from these witnesses regarding place of incident. 13. An axe, no doubt, is a heavy cutting sharp edged weapon. Unless it has not been specifically stated that it was used from the blunt side, in such circumstance it shall be deemed that it was used from the sharp edged side. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have specifically stated that the appellant assaulted and inflicted with an axe upon P.W. 3 Shiv Singh. Consequently, he sustained injuries on his person. Therefore, injuries would have been received of sharp edged weapon. Only one injury No. 8 was found as incised wound which could be caused by an axe but others 9 injuries out of 10 are lacerated wounds, contusions, abrasion and abraded contusion, which could not be caused by axe from the sharp edged side and it has not come from testimony of any witness that such axe was used by the appellant upon Shiv Singh P.W. 3 for causing injuries. The Investigating Officer who is P.W. 8, has not clarified this matter during the course of investigation as to how 9 blunt object injuries were received by P.W. 3. It is also worthwhile to mention here that blunt object injuries on skull and thighs were also found fractured and incised wound was considered by the doctor as simple injury. 14. It is also important to note here that it may be possible that sometimes blunt object injuries could be caused from the blunt side of axe and it may be either 1 or 2 or 3 injuries of such nature including sharp edged weapon but it could not be 9 in number out of 10 injuries of blunt object. Although P.W. 5 as stated in his deposition, who is doctor, that all 9 injuries of blunt object could be caused from the blunt side of axe but this is not the case of prosecution either in the F.I.R. or in statement of all the eye-witnesses including injured witnesses. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have stated in their deposition that appellant assaulted and inflicted an axe injuries by giving several blows upon the person of injured P.W. 3 Shiv Singh. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have stated in their deposition that appellant assaulted and inflicted an axe injuries by giving several blows upon the person of injured P.W. 3 Shiv Singh. No any explanation has been given on behalf of prosecution regarding injuries either in the previous statements of all the eye-witnesses including injured witness and statement recorded the trial Court as P.W. 8 and absence of any explanation regarding 9 blunt object injuries, manner of assault and marpit comes within the purview of suspicion. Manner alleged by prosecution regarding such marpit had not taken place as alleged by prosecution. The trial Court has convicted appellant merely on the basis of injury No. 9 which is incised wound. No reason was given by the trial Court regarding 9 blunt object injuries out of 10 found on the person of P.W. 3 Shiv Singh. Therefore, this finding given by the Court below is not correct. Therefore, manner of assault and inflicting injuries upon the injured person Shiv Singh is found suspicious. In such circumstances, the presence of appellant is also liable to be suspicious at the time of alleged incident. Therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of doubt in this case. Findings given by the trial Court are not correct and liable to be quashed. 15. In view of the above discussions, this criminal appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.1981 passed by the trial Court, by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. The appellant is on bail in this appeal. Therefore, his bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. He needs not surrender. ————