JUDGMENT VIJAY BISHNOI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-10-1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 54/1986 whereby the accused-appellant Chun Singh and Laxman Singh were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 323, I.P.C. and sentenced for six months simple imprisonment. 2. We may observe at the outset that the appellant No. 1 Laxman Singh having expired, this appeal has abated qua him, per the order dated 17-4-2000; and has been continued only in relation to the other appellant Chun Singh. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28-7-1986, Smt. Sita wife of Laxman Singh gave an oral report to the S.H.O., Police Station Bheem to the effect that on 27-7-1986 at about 5 p.m. when she was at her house, she saw Dhanna Singh, Chun Singh, Laxman Singh, Rupi, Champa, wife of Chun Singh, wife of Laxman Singh and wife of Koop Singh were passing in from of her house. Dhanna Singh, Chun Singh and Laxman Singh were carrying axe in their hands whereas the women were having lathies in their hands. It is alleged that the accused persons threatened her that they are going to kill her mother-in-law and Malla Singh. It is further stated by Smt. Sita that when the accused persons passed away from there she followed them and saw that the accused persons called Malla Singh and when Malla Singh came near to them Chun Singh inflicted an axe blow on left leg of Malla Singh and thereafter Laxman Singh and Dhanna Singh also assaulted Malla Singh. The accused women started beating her mother-in-law Dhanni and thereafter Laxman Singh and Dhanna Singh inflicted an axe blow on the head of Dhanni. Malla Singh was thereafter brought by Ghisa Singh to his home whereas on account of assault Dhanni died on the spot. It is further stated by Sita that on account of rains in the night, she failed to report the matter at police station and today, she along with Gheesa Singh (PW 3) is reporting the matter to the police. 4. It is further stated by Sita that on account of rains in the night, she failed to report the matter at police station and today, she along with Gheesa Singh (PW 3) is reporting the matter to the police. 4. On receiving this report, an FIR No. 70/86 at Police Station Bheem was registered against 8 persons namely Dhanna Singh, Chun Singh, Laxman Singh, Rupi w/o. Gopal, Champa w/o. Dhanna, Chuna Singh wife, Lal Singh wife, and Koop Singh wife for the offence under Sections 148/326 and 302/149, I.P.C. 5. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons and the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 325, 323/149, I.P.C. 6. During the trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 16 witnesses and also exhibited 7 documents. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and four witnesses have also been produced in defence. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted Dhanna Singh, Rupi, Champa, Keshar, Shanti and Meera from the charges levelled against them. However, learned trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced them as aforementioned. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Chun Singh has argued that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. though the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. It is argued by counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6). The evidence of Malla Singh is not trustworthy as he has failed to give details about his own injuries while giving his statement before the trial Court. It is further contended that the conduct of the Malla Singh (PW 6) is highly doubtful and it is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6) it is not proved that the accused appellant has committed the murder of deceased Dhanni in the evening of 27-7-1996. Malla Singh (PW 6) has nowhee stated in his statement that the accused Chun Singh has inflicted any blow on the body of the deceased Dhanni. Malla Singh (PW 6) has nowhee stated in his statement that the accused Chun Singh has inflicted any blow on the body of the deceased Dhanni. It is further stated by the counsel for the appellant Chun Singh that there are serious contradictions in the statement of Malla Singh (PW 6) and, therefore, the evidence is not reliable and the trial Court has grossly erred in placing reliance over the statement of Malla Singh for convicting the accused appellant Chun Singh. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant Chun Singh solely on the basis of presumption while holding that Malla Singh in his statement has stated that he was assaulted by accused-appellant Chun Singh and Laxman Singh, therefore, they might have murdered Dhanni on 27-7-1986. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the recovery of axe vide Exibit 10 at the instance of the accused-appellant is highly doubtful as it is mentioned in the recovery memo that there is a lock on the room from where the axe was recovered but there is no mention that who has opened the lock of the said room. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that though there is recovery of two axes by the police, one at the instance of the deceased appellant Laxman Singh and another at the instance of accused-appellant Chun Singh. However, in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood stains were found only on one axe, but the prosecution has failed to prove that from whom the blood stained axe was recovered. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention towards the observations made by the learned trial Court wherein the trial Court has also clearly observed that it is not revealed from the record that from whom the article 5 containing blood of Group was recovered. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention towards the observations made by the learned trial Court wherein the trial Court has also clearly observed that it is not revealed from the record that from whom the article 5 containing blood of Group was recovered. 9. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused appellant Chun Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. without even framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant Chun Singh that the appellant is charged for offence punishable under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and no specific charge was framed against the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. as such the learned trial Court in absence of framing of charge under Section 302, I.P.C. cannot convict the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1955 SC 274 and judgment of this Court rendered in Gura Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 (1) Cr LR (Raj) 450. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment passed by the learned lower Court and has argued that there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove the guilt of the appellant Chun Singh. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6), it is clear that the accused-appellant has murdered Dhanni in the evening of 27-7-1986 along with other accused persons Laxman Singh and also assaulted Malla Singh (PW 6). Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant Chun Singh is liable to be rejected. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is pertinent to note here that as per the prosecution there were three eye-witnesses of the alleged incident. However, during the pendency of the trial, Sita w/o. Laxman, daughter-in-law of deceased Dhanni died and, therefore, her statement were not recorded. Gheesa (PW 3), who was also termed as an eye-witness of the incident, was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. However, during the pendency of the trial, Sita w/o. Laxman, daughter-in-law of deceased Dhanni died and, therefore, her statement were not recorded. Gheesa (PW 3), who was also termed as an eye-witness of the incident, was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Now there is evidence of only one eye-witness i.e. Malla Singh (PW 6) available on record. 13. We have carefully examined the evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6). In his statement, he has nowhere stated that the appellant Chun Singh has inflicted axe blow on the body of the deceased Dhanni. It is stated by him that Dhanna Singh, Laxman Singh and Kishan Singh have inflicted axe blow on Dhanni whereas the women has assaulted Dhanni with lathies. It is also stated by Malla Singh (PW 6) that Chun Singh has inflicted a blow from the rear side of axe on his back. Malla Singh (PW 6), in his statement, has stated that Laxman Singh has inflicted an axe blow on his left leg but later on stated that he has wrongly mentioned the name of Laxman Singh and Chun Singh has inflicted a blow on his leg. Simultaneously he specifically states that he does not know who inflicted which injury and on which part of the body. From the careful examination of the statement of Malla Singh, it is borne out that there are serious contradictions in the statement of Malla Singh. The version given by Malla Singh is not corroborated by the statement of Gheesa Singh (PW 3). Malla Singh (PW 6) has not even able to explain his own injuries in his deposition and, therefore, the evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6) cannot be said to be trustworthy. Apart from that it is clear that the conduct of Malla Singh (PW 6) is also highly doubtful because despite there being murder of his step mother Dhanni, he had not bothered to inform about the incident to the police or to any other person and has not even gone for lodging an FIR on the next day. 14. It is also to be noticed that the recovery of the axe at the instance of Chun Singh is also highly doubtful because in the recovery memo, it has not been mentioned that who has opened the lock of the room from where the axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant Chun Singh. 14. It is also to be noticed that the recovery of the axe at the instance of Chun Singh is also highly doubtful because in the recovery memo, it has not been mentioned that who has opened the lock of the room from where the axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant Chun Singh. It is also pertinent to note here that though in the Forensic Science Laboratory report Exhibit P/29, it is mentioned that human blood is detected on one of the axes but the prosecution has failed to prove that axe on which the blood was detected was recovered at the instance of the appellant Chun Singh. 15. In all these circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the appellant Chun Singh has committed murder of deceased Dhanni along with other persons in the evening of 27-7-1986 and has also assaulted Malla Singh (PW 6). 16. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of deceased Dhanni while holding that since Malla Singh (PW 6) has stated that the accused-appellant Chun Singh and deceased appellant Laxman Singh have assaulted him and, therefore, it can be presumed that both these persons have also murdered Mst. Dhanni. At the same time, the learned trial Court in the earlier part of the judgment has specifically observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of blood stained axe (Article 5), weapon of murder, at the instance of the appellant Chun Singh. It is clear that the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant Chun Singh only on the basis of a baseless inference and it can be said that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting the accused-appellant Chun Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is not based on cogent reasonings. 17. It is clear that the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant Chun Singh only on the basis of a baseless inference and it can be said that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting the accused-appellant Chun Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is not based on cogent reasonings. 17. We have already discussed the evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6) in detail and have found that the same is not conclusive to convict the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. Hence, the findings of the learned trial Court, convicting the accused-appellant for the said offence, based solely on evidence of Malla Singh (PW 6), cannot be considered justified and we are satisfied that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. 18. In view of that has been discussed hereinabove, it is but apparent that even if the appellant was charged only for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. yet, there was no possibility of his being convicted therefore in this view of the matter, it does not appear necessary to dilate upon the alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards want of specific charge for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. This aspect of the matter is left at that only. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 24-10-1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 54/1986 is set aside qua the accused-appellant Chun Singh. The accused-appellant Chun Singh stands acquitted of all the charges. The appellant Chun Singh is on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.