Judgment ( 1. ) BY this appeal, appellants have challenged their conviction under Section 302/149 of the IPC, sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default payment of fine additional RI for three months, also under Section 147 of the IPC, sentenced to RI for three months to each of the appellants. Both the substantial sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2. ) IN short, the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 23rd January, 1996 in the morning at 8. 00 a. m. , Kanchanbai (P. W. 1), and her husband deceased Champalal were taking she-buffalo to their field. When they reached near the field of one Dalu, deceased, Champalal stayed for answering the call of nature and Kanchanbai continued to proceed towards with the she-buffalo. Champalal was attacked by the appellants having sword and farsi (*** ). Appellant Bhagwan was having sword and other appellants were possessing farsi (*** ). On hearing cry of Champalal, Kanchanbai took a turn and saw the incident and also rushed towards the scene of occurrence. The appellants after seeing her, fled away. On alarm being raised by Kanchanbai, Ramsingh (P. W. 2), Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3) and other villagers reached on the spot. On quarry by Ramsingh and Ramesh chandra, deceased Champalal disclosed that because of old enmity he was assaulted. Champalal sustained injuries on all over the body and he was taken to village on a cot. From village, in tractor of Goma (P. W. 5), deceased was taken to Shamgarh. Champalal was not in a position to speak therefore, FIR (Exh. P-1) was lodged by Kanchanbai (P. W. 1 ). In the same tractor, Champalal was sent to hospital, but he died on the way and intimation to this effect was given in Police Station by Constable Chandansingh (P. W. 11), on the basis of which, merg (Exh. P-25) was registered. After completion of inquest proceeding, dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to Govt. Hospital Shamgarh. Dr. V. B. Jain (P. W. 4) conducted post-mortem examination of deceased Champalal. Post-mortem report is Exh. P-5. The Investigating Officer seized blood stained and controlled earth from the spot and also prepared spot map. After arrest of the appellants at their instance, sword and farsi (chd l cfleil were seized. Hospital Shamgarh. Dr. V. B. Jain (P. W. 4) conducted post-mortem examination of deceased Champalal. Post-mortem report is Exh. P-5. The Investigating Officer seized blood stained and controlled earth from the spot and also prepared spot map. After arrest of the appellants at their instance, sword and farsi (chd l cfleil were seized. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and after receipt of its report, same was filed before the Trial Court. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the above mentioned offences. ( 3. ) APPELLANTS denied the charged and submitted that Champalal was having criminal antecedents and is a person of quarrelsome nature. There were number of reports against him and also was facing criminal cases, therefore, he was having inimical term with several persons. Out of those persons, somebody might have committed his murder, but appellants have been falsely implicated because of enmity. Appellants have filed certified copies of judgments, FIRs and charge-sheets vide Exhs. D-4-D-15. Appellant Bhagirath (appellant No. 6)pleaded alibi. According to him, he was on well. They have also submitted that because of election and political rivalry, Ramsingh (P. W. 2) was having inimical term with Pahalwan (appellant No. 3) and Mohandas (appellant No. 5) and against Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3), a report was lodged against his brother ramchandra by wife of appellant No. 1 Sitaram and mother of appellants, pahalwan and Mohandas named Kaushalyabai regarding beating her and, because of enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated. Appellants Bapu and Bhagwan have also stated that they were having inimical terms with witnesses Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3) and because of all these reasons, both the witnesses stood against them and at the instance of ramsingh (P. W. 2), Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3) and Kanchanbai (P. W. 1)concocted a false case against the appellants. ( 4. ) APPELLANTS have not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court found the prosecution case proved, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction is based on the solitary testimony of Kanchanbai (P. W. 1), wife of deceased Champalal. Her statement is at variance with medical evidence. The learned trial Court found the prosecution case proved, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction is based on the solitary testimony of Kanchanbai (P. W. 1), wife of deceased Champalal. Her statement is at variance with medical evidence. According to her, all the appellants were having sharp edged weapon like sword and qicil el sl which was known as farsi, but not a single injury was found on the person of deceased by autopsy surgeon Dr. V. B. Jain (P. W. 4 ). Learned counsel has also submitted that in the FIR, there is no mention of the fact of disclosure of names of the appellants to witnesses Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3 ). In oral dying declaration, witness Ramsingh (P. W. 2)has admitted about loosing of Panchayat Election against appellant No. 1 sitaram and Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3) has also admitted that on the land of his father-in-law, appellant Bhagwan dug a well after illegal encroachment or trespass. Therefore, evidence of both the witnesses Ramsingh and Ramesh chandra could not be relied upon. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and finding of the Trial Court and took us through paragraphs 16, 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Trial court has assigned reason for placing reliance on eye-witness Kanchanbai (P. W. 1) and witnesses of oral dying declaration Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and Ramesh chandra (P. W. 3 ). ( 7. ) TO appreciate the argument, it would be apposite to discuss first the medical evidence of Dr. V. B. Jain (P. W. 4), who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Champalal and proved Exh. P-4 and Exh. P-5 is the post-mor-tem report. On external examination of deceased, he found in total 14 injuries and all were caused, in his opinion, by hard and blunt object. In cross-examina-tion, Paragraph 5, he has admitted that none of the external injuries could be caused by sharp edged weapon. The injuries were contusions and lacerated wounds on left arm, elbow joint, left leg, right leg, chest and skull. He found fracture of left humerus bone and bruise 4" x 1" on back of left forearm with supracondyler fracture of left humerus bone. The injuries were contusions and lacerated wounds on left arm, elbow joint, left leg, right leg, chest and skull. He found fracture of left humerus bone and bruise 4" x 1" on back of left forearm with supracondyler fracture of left humerus bone. In his opinion, deceased died because or shock due to cumulative effect or tne injuries on his person, Tne medical evidence of Dr. Jain (P. W. 4) is completely at variance with the eye-witness account of Kanchanbai (P. W. 1 ). Kanchanbai (P. W. 1) has stated that appellant Bhagwan was having sword and rest of the five appellants were having chci*} cjldl elchsl (sharp edged iron blade fixed with long wooden handle ). In cross-examination, she has deposed that deceased was assaulted by the sharp side of the weapon possessed by the appellants. The learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of this witness in Paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment, has given benefit to the prosecution of this contradiction on the ground that Kanchanbai (P. W 1) did not witness the incident right from beginning till the end. She was going ahead of deceased and when appellants started assaulting deceased, she overheard his cry, thereafter, turned back and rushed towards the scene of occurrence. During that moment, she saw the appellants having all these kinds of weapons and also using the same. Therefore, she might not be able to see as to which side of the weapon was used by the appellants. We have given our anxious thought over this analogy and do not find substance in the same, because if really six accused persons were having sharp edged weapon, at least some injury out of total 16 external injuries, almost all over the part of the body of the deceased, would have been caused by sharp side of the weapon especially when the weapons like sword and farsi made for use of its sharp side. Therefore, instant case is falling within the first category, i. e. , the witnesses stated that the accused caused injury by particular kind of weapon and there is absolutely no injury found on the person of the deceased caused by such weapon. Supreme Court has defined three categories for appreciating the conflict of the ocular account with medical evidence. Therefore, instant case is falling within the first category, i. e. , the witnesses stated that the accused caused injury by particular kind of weapon and there is absolutely no injury found on the person of the deceased caused by such weapon. Supreme Court has defined three categories for appreciating the conflict of the ocular account with medical evidence. First category is that there is no injury found on the person of the victim said to have been caused by a particular weapon. The second category is though injury was found, but did not find on a particular part of the body as stated by the eye-witnesses and third category was though injuries found on the victim are of the types which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimensions of injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimensions of weapon. ( 8. ) IN case of Thaman Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of chandigarh [ (2003) Vol. 6 SCC 380], the Supreme Court has specifically held that when the case of the prosecution is falling within first category, i. e. , no injury was found on the person of deceased/victim said to have been caused by a particular kind of weapon, the benefit will go to the accused and eye-witnesses account cannot be accepted in this regard. In the instant case similar is the situation. ( 9. ) IN view of the well established legal position about appreciation of evidence of single, interested and partisan witness to appreciate his evidence with utmost care and caution, we are of the view that on lest evidence of the solitary eye-witness Kanchanbai (P. W. 1) wife of deceased, who has also stated that they were having inimical term with the appellants on account of laking water for irrigation from the well and during the period of this incident, this dispute was in existence and was going on between them. The say of this witness is that 2-4 days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellants. Under these circumstances, the testimony of kanchanbai (P. W. 1) cannot be relied upon because of contradiction with medical evidence. ( 10. ) KANCHANBAI (P. W. 1) has lodged the report (Exh. The say of this witness is that 2-4 days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellants. Under these circumstances, the testimony of kanchanbai (P. W. 1) cannot be relied upon because of contradiction with medical evidence. ( 10. ) KANCHANBAI (P. W. 1) has lodged the report (Exh. P-1) on the same day and in that report, there is no mention of disclosure of the names of the appellants by deceased that after arrival of witnesses Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and rameshchandra (P. W. 3) on the spot, they asked about the incident to her husband deceased Champalal and Champalal disclosed the names of the appellants and assault by them. In Paragraph 5 of the deposition, her attention was drawn towards this material omission in the FIR, in which her reply was that she disclosed all these facts to the police, but if same is not available in FIR (Exh. P-1), she could not assign any reason. In Paragraphs 8 and 9 she has also admitted the fact of contest between witness Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and appellant no. 1 Sitaram in Gram Panchayat Election. In the same paragraph, she has denied prosecution of the deceased in criminal cases and dispute with several persons in the village. Her this denial is obviously incorrect or false in the light of the certified copies of the criminal cases, civil case, FIRs and charge-sheets filed by the appellants marked as Exh. D-4 to D-15. All these certified copies of the cases in which deceased was the party, have been admitted by the prosecution. It cannot be said that Kanchanbai (P. W. 1) was not knowing about involvement of her husband in civil and criminal cases. Even then, her refusal to accept this factual aspect goes to indicate the tendency of this witness towards respect for truth. ( 11. ) NOW the next set of prosecution evidence relied upon by the Trial court while discussing in Paragraphs 21 to 22 is the evidence of oral dying declaration made by the deceased before Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and rameshchandra (P. W. 3 ). The say of both these witnesses is that they were in their respective houses and at that moment, they heard about quarrel with champalal near the field of one Dalu. There they reached and found presence of 15-20 persons near the deceased. The say of both these witnesses is that they were in their respective houses and at that moment, they heard about quarrel with champalal near the field of one Dalu. There they reached and found presence of 15-20 persons near the deceased. Wife of the deceased was also there. She was sitting near Champalal while giving him support to sit. At that moment, champalal told the names of all the five appellants as his assailants, who assaulted him by cpflt TJcj m t st. Thereafter, they brought the deceased in the village and deceased and other persons went to Police station in a tractor. In cross-examination, he admitted that deceased lost Gram panchayat Election against appellant No. 1 Sitaram, but he denied any kind of strained relation on his count with Sitaram. He has also denied defence suggestion regarding dispute with appellants Bhagwan on account of irrigation of land by water from well situated in the field of Bhagwan. In Paragraph 8, he has admitted about cases pending in the Court against Champalal and Champalal was facing 50-100 cases, but he expressed his ignorance about externment proceeding against Champalal. He also admitted that because of involvement of Champalal in criminal activities, the villagers of Village Borkehdi and nearby villages were facing trouble and harassment. Champalal was oftenly quarreling with others. Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3) in Paragraph 6, has admitted that he was residing in the house of his father-in-law in Village Borkhedi as "ghar Jamai" and on the land of his father-in-law, appellant Bhagwan, after making trespass dug a well. He also admitted that on this count, there was a dispute between his father-in-law Hariramdas and Bhagwan. In the light of all these positive admissions by Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 3), both these witnesses cannot be regarded as independent witnesses. They had sufficient reason to keep grudge against the appellants and disclosure of the deceased to them regarding his assault by present appellants by sharp edged weapons like sword, farsi and Dhariya is completely at variance with the medical evidence. We have no strong reason to give preference to the testimony of interested, inimical and partisan witnesses over the evidence of independent witness Dr. V. B. Jain (P. W. 4 ). The FSL report appears to have been received and filed before the Trial Court, but same was not exhibited. We have no strong reason to give preference to the testimony of interested, inimical and partisan witnesses over the evidence of independent witness Dr. V. B. Jain (P. W. 4 ). The FSL report appears to have been received and filed before the Trial Court, but same was not exhibited. We have perused this report available in paper book at pages 11-13 and simple blood was found on articles a-1 and B to E, but it is of no use in absence of presence of human blood on the weapon seized from the appellants and blood group tallying with the blood group of deceased. ( 12. ) ON overall conspectus of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no ring of truth exists in solitary testimony of eye-witness Kanchanbai (P. W. 1)and witnesses Ramsingh (P. W. 2) and Rameshchandra (P. W. 3) for oral dying declaration which are the basis for conviction of the appellants. ( 13. ) IN the result, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and finding of the learned Trial Court are hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail and surety bonds stand discharged. Criminal Appeal allowed.