JUDGMENT The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.72/1995 and the judgment was delivered on 27-1-1999. 2. Learned Counsel Shri A.D. Girdekar is heard on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar is heard on behalf of the respondent/State. The case of the respondent before the trial Court was that the complainant Ramnath Totla and the appellant were residents of one and the same village and their fields were adjacent to each other. The complainant on 27-11-1994 along with his labours Narendra, Sulochana and Kisan had gone to his field. At about 2-00 p.m. he heard noise by the side of his field. It was seen by him that the appellant was cutting a babool tree. The complainant obstructed cutting of tree as there was dispute over the boundary of agricultural field. The appellant had, therefore, attempted to inflict an axe blow. However, later on he could succeed in inflicting a blow by means of a spade on the complainant. Matter was reported to police. The complainant was referred to medical hospital. The Medical Officer found that the complainant had incised wound on left side of parietal bone and he had also incised wound more in the same region. It was opined by the Medical Officer that the injuries could be caused by sharp edged weapon. The X-Ray plate showed that there was a depressed skull fracture and was fatal and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant was also sent for medical examination as he had also sustained injuries. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the trial Court. 4. When the case came up for framing of charge, the learned trial Judge framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exhibit 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty vide his plea Exhibit 6. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the trial Court. 4. When the case came up for framing of charge, the learned trial Judge framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exhibit 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty vide his plea Exhibit 6. 5. The respondent had examined in all six witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Ramnath Totla is the complainant, P.W.2 Narendra Bhujapure is eyewitness, P.W.3 Prakash Lokhande is the panch witness in whose presence a spade was seized at the instance of the appellant, P. W.4-Ashok Laul is the Medical Officer, who had examined P.W.1, P. W.5- Vilas Sonone is also Medical Officer, who had referred P.W.1 to Nagpur Hospital and P.W.6-Babadin Choubey is Investigating Officer. 6. From the evidence adduced by the respondent, it can be seen that whole of the case of the respondent was based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 is the complainant himself and P.W.2 is the eyewitness. It is stated by P.W.1 that the appellant had made an attempt to inflict an axe blow on his head when he attempted to obstruct the appellant from cutting the tree. P.W.1 had snatched the axe and had thrown it away. Thereafter the appellant had inflicted a blow by means of a spade, which resulted into injuries described by the Medical Officer. In the meantime, Narendra reached there and he bandaged the injuries by means of a cloth piece. P. W.1 was taken to doctor for first aid and thereafter he was taken to police station. His report was recorded at Exhibit 13 and First Information Report was registered at Exhibit 14. P.W.1 has stated that he had sustained a fracture on skull and therefore, he was referred to Nagpur. He was sent to Dr. Dhande's Hospital. P.W.2 has more or less supported the evidence of P.W.1 as far as the assault by means of spade is concerned. 7. P.W.3 is the panch witness who has stated that a spade was produced by the appellant from his hut during the period when he was in police custody and it was seized by the police. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he himself had not entered the hut. 7. P.W.3 is the panch witness who has stated that a spade was produced by the appellant from his hut during the period when he was in police custody and it was seized by the police. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he himself had not entered the hut. P. W.6, who is the Investigating Officer, has stated that the accused had made a statement in police custody that he will produce a spade. Accordingly, his statement was reduced to writing. His statement is at Exhibit 17. It is further stated by P.W.6 that the appellant produced a spade from his hut and the same was seized under the seizure panchanama at Exhibit 18. The clothes of P.W.1 were seized. It is further stated by P.W.6 that the clothes and spade were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. 8. The Chemical Analyzer had reported that the blood group of the appellant was 'A' and blood group of P.W.1 was 'O'. It is further reported by the Chemical Analyzer that the spade and clothes of P.W.1 were found stained with blood of group 'O'. 9. As such the respondents did not rely upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 only who are eyewitnesses but they also sought corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 and reports of the Chemical Analyzer, which are at Exhibits 40, 41 and 42. 10. In brief, the evidence before the trial Court against the appellant was that testimony of P. W.1 and testimony of his servant, the evidence of Medical Officers, recovery of spade and reports of Chemical Analyzer supporting the case of the respondent that the spade was used for inflicting injuries on P.W.1 by the appellant. The learned trial Court believed the evidence and recorded conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned Counsel Shri A.D. Girdekar has submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also failed to appreciate admission made by P.W.6 that the appellant had also made a complaint against P.W.1 and that the appellant was also sent for medical examination. The medical examination report of the appellant is at Exhibit 24, which indicates that the appellant had sustained two contusions. The medical examination report of the appellant is at Exhibit 24, which indicates that the appellant had sustained two contusions. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also invited my attention to the fact that P.W.2 has not stated in his evidence that the appellant had made an attempt to inflict a blow on P.W.1 by means of an axe. It is contended that P.W.2 reached the spot later on and he did not witness the incident. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 should have been rejected by the learned trial Court, particularly when the two other witnesses present with P.W.2 namely Sulochana and Kisan had not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution had not given explanation as to why these two witnesses have not examined. I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel Shri A.D. Girdekar. The evidence of P.W.2 is doubtful and that had left the trial Court with the evidence of P.W.1 only as far as oral evidence is concerned. My attention was drawn to the cross-examination of P.W.2 in which he has admitted that there was a scuffle between the appellant and P.W.1. It is noted that though P.W.1 has admitted that there was a dispute between P.W.1 and the appellant, he has denied that there was a scuffle. As such P.W.1 has not presented a correct picture of the incident. In view of unreliable evidence of P.W.2, the evidence of P.W.1 should have been examined by the trial Court with great care and caution. There was possibility of the fact that P.W.1 was lying. It is possible that there was a spade and there was a scuffle. It is also possible that during the course of scuffle, P.W.1 had fallen down and he had sustained injuries. This view is fortified by the fact that the appellant had also sustained injuries, which had been noted by the Medical Officer. The appellant had also lodged the complaint against P.W.1. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court should have come to the conclusion that the respondents had failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts. It need not be stated here that in a criminal case the liability is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. No doubt, the doubt created in the mind of Court cannot be fanciful doubt but it has to be a reasonable basis. It need not be stated here that in a criminal case the liability is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. No doubt, the doubt created in the mind of Court cannot be fanciful doubt but it has to be a reasonable basis. In the circumstances of the case, the defence taken by the appellant in cross-examination of the witnesses could not have been rejected. There was possibility of scuffle and as such the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. 12. In addition to this, it may also be noted here that during the course of trial itself the appellant and P.W.1 had resolved the dispute amicably and wanted to put an end to the dispute. They had filed a pursis at Exhibit 38 stating inter alia that the relations between P.W.1 and the appellant had been restored and they were living cordially. It was also stated that the dispute has been resolved amicably. The learned trial Court however rejected the plea on the ground that offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. 13. For all these reasons, I pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.72/1995 on 27-1-1999 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.