JUDGMENT This appeal takes exception to the judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Original accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are parents of the appellant are acquitted of the offence. 2. In brief the case of prosecution can be stated as follows :- Deceased Suresh Maroti Chaudhari was son of Maroti from his second wife Nagabai along with P.W.10-Madhav - injured witness. Co-accused Subhash was step brother of the deceased, who was born to Muktabai. The appellant is son of Subhash, who were residing jointly along with co-accused Sonabai. Deceased Suresh and P.W.10-Madhav were residing jointly. Maroti, his both wives died much prior to the incident. The appellant, his parents (co-accused Nos. 2 & 3) as well as deceased and P.W.10-Madhav were maintaining themselves by cultivating their agricultural lands. Some part of the land owned by deceased and P.W.10-Madhav was acquired by the Government for percolation tank, of which they have received compensation, while appellant and his parents were demanding some amount from the said compensation and on this count there used to be quarrel amongst them. On 25.12.2010 at about 7-30 p.m. P.W.10-Madhav had visited pan shop of Bharat Kotampalle. The appellant came at the said shop and started abusing him and indulged into quarrel giving P.W.10-Madhav fist and kick blows. At the same time, his parents (co-accused) arrived there. Co-accused Nos. 2 and 3 started to beat P.W.10-Madhav on account of compensation amount, due to which there was crowd on the spot and in that assault the appellant having knife in his hand, assaulted P.W.10-Madhav in the left side of ribs and inflicted knife blows on his left shoulder. In the meantime, deceased-Suresh arrived on the spot to rescue P.W.10-Madhav. However, co-accused caught hold both of his hands and appellant inflicted knife blow in his abdomen and also on the right side of chin and left shoulder. The incident was pacified by the villagers, Govind Mehkar and P.W.11-Ashwini, daughter of P.W.10-Madhav. In the meantime, deceased-Suresh arrived on the spot to rescue P.W.10-Madhav. However, co-accused caught hold both of his hands and appellant inflicted knife blow in his abdomen and also on the right side of chin and left shoulder. The incident was pacified by the villagers, Govind Mehkar and P.W.11-Ashwini, daughter of P.W.10-Madhav. After the assault, deceased-Suresh was referred to the Sub-District Hospital, Udgir, where on the following day, his statement was recorded by P.W.5-Suryakant Kulkarni-police constable and on the basis of said statement, offence came to be registered vide Crime No. 103 of 2010 for the offences punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents (co-accused). 3. According to the case of prosecution, some operation was performed on the injuries sustained by Suresh in Udgir and for better treatment, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Latur, where on 26.12.2010 his statement was recorded by P.W.8-Narayan Ranazunjare, A.S.I. Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur and further statement is recorded on 27.12.2012 by P.W.7 Vilas Jogdand, Nayab Tahsildar, Latur. 4. During the course of investigation of the crime, spot panchanama was prepared but nothing incriminating was found on the spot. On 26.11.2010 itself at 6.00 p.m. the appellant came to be arrested while co-accused came to be arrested on the following day. During the course of interrogation the appellant's memorandum statement came to be recorded, according to which he has expressed his willingness to recover the knife concealed by him in his house, which came to be reduced into writing and in pursuance of the same, the investigating officer attached one knife at the instance of the appellant from his house which was found concealed on the roof of his house. 5. It is case of the prosecution that injured Maruti, P.W.10-Madhav and P.W.11-Ashwini were referred to Deoni Hospital on 02.01.2011 and Suresh died on 17.01.2011 while at Ambegaon, which is his native place. On the death of Suresh, post-mortem was performed on his body and offence punishable under section 302 came to be added in the present crime. On recording statement of witnesses and on forwarding the seized muddemal articles for its analysis to Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Deoni. In the course of time, same came to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. On recording statement of witnesses and on forwarding the seized muddemal articles for its analysis to Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Deoni. In the course of time, same came to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The charges were levelled against the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the appellant, has examined as many as 17 witnesses. Learned Trial Court on considering evidence on record, which primarily is in the form of three dying declarations of Suresh and ocular evidence of P.W.10-Madhav and P.W.11-Ashwini, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the co-accused (parents of the appellant). Hence, this appeal, by appellant-Dhondiram. 6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. V.D. Gunale for the appellant and learned A.P.P Mr. A.S. Shinde. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for both the sides, with their assistance I have scrutinized the evidence on record. Admittedly, the case of prosecution is mainly relied upon the dying declarations, which are three in numbers and the ocular testimony of the injured witness Madhav and his daughter Ashwini. 7. P.W.10-Madhav has stated that his father had two wives, namely, Muktabai and Nagabai - who is mother of deceased Suresh while Muktabai had four daughters and two sons, namely, Subhash and Shivaji. His father during his lifetime partitioned the properties amongst four sons in equal share and accordingly he along with deceased-Suresh were jointly residing and his step-brothers were residing together separately. He has stated that agricultural land owned by him and the deceased, was acquired for percolation tank of which they received compensation. However, the appellant and co-accused were demanding share from said compensation amount. He has further stated that in the background of above on 25.12.2010 at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. when he visited the pan shop, the appellant along with co-accused abused him and on catching his collar started assaulting by fist and kick blows and appellant gave knife blows on the right side of his ribs and also gave two blows on his hand, due to which people gathered on the spot. He has further stated that deceased Suresh rushed towards him and attempted to rescue, however, the appellant assaulted him in his abdomen and on his right hand and chest by knife. He has further stated that his wife Sunita and daughter P.W.11-Ashwini and one Govind Mhetre attempted to rescue and in that process P.W.11-Ashwini sustained injury on her left hand fingers, by the knife at the hands of the appellant. According to his further evidence, due to the assault, Suresh fell down and one Umakant Garibe informed about the incident to police. This is the evidence of P.W.10-Madhav on the point of assault upon him and the deceased at the hands of the appellant. On considering his cross-examination with reference to his above evidence, he has admitted that the incident took place beside the grocery shop of Kalidas Birajdar, which is situated near Pan shop. He has admitted that the incident took place in front of Pan stall on the road and further admitted that one Baburao Patil, Govind Mhetre witnessed the incident of assault on him and had intervened to pacify the quarrel and also admitted that after sustaining assault, he fell unconscious and has also admitted that he was initially assaulted and then Suresh was assaulted. Considering his admissions as above about his falling unconscious on sustaining assault, thus, he cannot be termed to be eye witness to the incident of assault on Suresh. Admittedly, prosecution has not examined Sunita w/o. Madhav Govind Mhetre and Umakant Garibe, though according to evidence of Madhav, they had witnessed the assault, nor had examined Subhash Patil, Govind Mhetre, who according to P.W.10-Madhav had intervened to pacify the quarrel. It appears that all these above named witnesses would be more reliable being independent witnesses. However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution had failed to examine any of them. P.W.10-Madhav in the later part of his cross-examination stated that in his statement recorded by police he has mentioned about his visit to pan shop where the appellant along with co-accused came. He further deposed to have stated in his statement that the appellant caught hold his collar and has further stated to have mentioned in his statement that the appellant assaulted Suresh and P.W.11-Ashwini. However, according to him, he is unable to state as to why these facts are not found in the statement. 8. He further deposed to have stated in his statement that the appellant caught hold his collar and has further stated to have mentioned in his statement that the appellant assaulted Suresh and P.W.11-Ashwini. However, according to him, he is unable to state as to why these facts are not found in the statement. 8. Above material omissions from the evidence of P.W.10-Madhav are duly brought on record from the evidence of P.W.17- Yashwant Kadam, I.O., who has recorded his statement, when he has admitted that P.W.10-Madhav in his statement has not stated above facts. Evidence of P.W.10-Madhav for this reason does not inspire confidence, as he appears to have materially improved his version. 9. On the point of assault as alleged by the prosecution further evidence which needs consideration is that of P.W.11-Ashwini, who is examined by the prosecution as eye-witness to the incident of assault. She has stated that on 25.12.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. when she was in her house at Ambegaon, she heard hue and cry and therefore rushed to the spot of incident along with her mother Sunita and saw the appellant assaulting her father P.W.10-Madhav by fist and kick blows and then by knife on the left side of his ribs. She further stated that P.W.10-Madhav was subjected to assault by appellant and in the meantime deceased Suresh came on the spot to rescue the assault, when co-accused caught hold hands of Suresh and appellant gave knife blow in his abdomen as well as on his right hand and chicks. She further stated that she, her mother and Govind Mhetre attempted to rescue the deceased and in that process, she received injury on her middle finger of her right hand. It is material to note that evidence of P.W.11-Ashwini contradicts evidence of P.W.10-Madhav on the material point, when P.W10-Madhav is silent on the alleged role attributed by P.W.10-Ashwini to the co-accused about their holding hands of deceased Suresh while appellant giving blows in his abdomen. This is very material and important piece of evidence, however, same is missing from the ocular version of P.W.10-Madhav. This is very material and important piece of evidence, however, same is missing from the ocular version of P.W.10-Madhav. As already referred, while considering evidence of P.W.10-Madhav when evidence of P.W.11-Ashwini is further considered, she appears to have admitted presence of persons as named before at the time of incident and in addition to that has stated that shop owner Kalidas Shinde and Pan Shop owner Bharat Kotampalle were also present on the spot along with Subhash Patil. According to her evidence, all these persons were, in-fact, present on the spot even prior to her reaching to the spot with her mother. Even P.W.11-Ashwini appears to have materially improved her version so as to suit the case of prosecution when she has admitted that she has not stated in her statement that deceased came at the place of incident and also has not stated that co-accused caught hold hands of the deceased while appellant gave knife blow in his stomach. In view of these material improvements in the evidence of P.W.11-Ashwini, her evidence also does not inspire confidence on the point of assault. 10. As stated earlier, these are the only two witnesses who admittedly are interse related to deceased Suresh. The prosecution has not put forth any reason for non-examining any independent witness though they were present on the spot and as such were natural witnesses. The prosecution, in-fact, is found to be duty bound to examine independent witnesses in view of the fact of this case that relations between the appellant and his family members and that of deceased were strained even prior to incident on account of compensation of land acquired by the Government. As such, on discarding evidence of above two eye-witnesses I have considered the evidence relied by the prosecution, with reference to the dying declarations on record. From the evidence of P.W.5 - S.S. Kulkarni, Police Constable, it has come on record that on 25.12.2010, when he was on duty at Udgir City Police Station, at about 11.45 p.m. he received intimation from the Medical Officer, Udgir. His evidence is silent with reference to contents of intimation from the Medical Officer and has further stated that on receipt of such letter on 26.12.2010 at 7.30 a.m. he visited the Sub-District Hospital, Udgir and on contacting the Medical Officer informed that statement of deceased Suresh Chaudhari was to be recorded. His evidence is silent with reference to contents of intimation from the Medical Officer and has further stated that on receipt of such letter on 26.12.2010 at 7.30 a.m. he visited the Sub-District Hospital, Udgir and on contacting the Medical Officer informed that statement of deceased Suresh Chaudhari was to be recorded. He has stated that on his request, the Medical Officer examined the deceased and certified him to be fit to make statement and endorsed upon it. He has further stated that he then recorded statement of Suresh wherein he stated that his father Maroti have two wives named as Nagabai and Muktabai. He is son of Nagabai and one more son Madhav and Vandana are the sons and daughter of Nagabai. Further he stated that his step mother Muktabai has two sons Subhash and Shivaji. He stated that his father Maroti and mother Nagabai are dead. He stated that Subhash and Shivaji are his step brothers. His land was acquired for percolation tank and compensation amount was received. Subhash, the step-brother and his wife and children were continuously demanding the money and compensation amount of the land to him. On 25.02.2010 at 7.30 p.m. P.W.10 - Madhav - brother of Suresh had gone for chewing pan to pan shop in the village. While he was returning from pan shop in the village on account of enmity, accused Subhash Maruti Chaudhari, Dhondiram Chaudhari and Sonabai wife of Dhondiram met with him. Accused Subhash assaulted with knife to Madhav to his left rib and left hand thereby caused him injury. Therefore, Suresh i.e. deceased went there and he came to know about the incident. He found bodily injury on Madhav. Suresh was then caught hold by Sonabai and Subhash at the spot and Dhondiram assaulted with knife on the left rib and left hand and to right chin. In the later part of his statement, deceased has stated that witness Shripati Mehkar the villager intervened into the incident. Madhav and himself were brought to hospital for medical treatment. Therefore, he was taking medical treatment in the hospital. He stated that the incident has occurred on 25.12.2010 at 7.30 p.m. in the village. Further he stated that accused Subhash Chaudhari, Dhondiram Chaudhari and Sonabai Chaudhari assaulted with knife, fist blow and kicks and caused him injuries. Madhav and himself were brought to hospital for medical treatment. Therefore, he was taking medical treatment in the hospital. He stated that the incident has occurred on 25.12.2010 at 7.30 p.m. in the village. Further he stated that accused Subhash Chaudhari, Dhondiram Chaudhari and Sonabai Chaudhari assaulted with knife, fist blow and kicks and caused him injuries. P.W.5-Suryakant further stated that after recording statement as above, he read over it to him and thereafter obtained his thumb impression and he also signed the same and thus proved said document on record at Exh.37. 11. Evidence of P.W.10-Dr. Pathan Amjad reveals that on 25.12.2010 he was attached to Sub-District Hospital, Udgir as Medical Officer and on that day at 8.55 p.m. Suresh was admitted in the hospital from Deoni Police Station, who had sustained stab injury on his abdomen having 5 cm. in length, 4 cms in width and 5 cms deep, caused within six hours by sharp and hard weapon. P.W.10-Dr. Pathan stated that on 26.12.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.5-Kulkarni, contacted him and requested that he wanted to record statement of Suresh. Accordingly, he examined and found him to be conscious and oriented about time, place and person and thus gave his endorsement at Exh.37. Perusal of Exh.37 reveals that there is only one endorsement upon it certifying that the patient is conscious and ready to give statement. There is no endorsement that the patient was mentally and physically in fit state of condition during recording of his statement. In-fact, P.W.10-Dr. Pathan has admitted that he has not made second endorsement after the statement of the injured was recorded. He has also further admitted that he has not mentioned nor made any endorsement on the statement recorded. In the circumstances, there is nothing on record to establish whether deceased Suresh was mentally and physically in fit state of mind to make statement when it came to be recorded, even otherwise it does not establish as to when said document was commenced and when it came to be concluded. In-fact, P.W.5-Kulkarni, Police Constable has admitted that on Exh.37, he had not mentioned about above timings. 12. Second statement of deceased Suresh, is recorded by P.W.8-Narayan, ASI, who has stated that on 26.12.2010, he was attached to Police Chowky in Latur Govt. In-fact, P.W.5-Kulkarni, Police Constable has admitted that on Exh.37, he had not mentioned about above timings. 12. Second statement of deceased Suresh, is recorded by P.W.8-Narayan, ASI, who has stated that on 26.12.2010, he was attached to Police Chowky in Latur Govt. Hospital as A.S.I. and on receiving instructions on wireless from Deoni Police Station at 8.00 p.m. for recording statement of Suresh, he visited Ward No. 16 in the hospital and on his request P.W.9 Dr. Ram examined Suresh and informed that he was in a position to make statement. Accordingly second statement of Suresh was recorded from 10.30 p.m. wherein he has stated that on 25.12.2010 at about 19.30 hrs. behind Maruti Temple on road at village Ambegaon appellant-Dhondiram Chaudhari, Subhash Chaudhari and Sonabai Chaudhari assaulted him by fist and kick blows and Dhondiram assaulted by knife on his abdomen, on right hand and on chin. The persons by name Govind Mhetre, Kashinath Mhetre and Umakant Garibe made attempt to pacify quarrel. Witness Umakant Garibe went in Deoni Police Station and lodged complaint. The police by jeep arrived at the place and took injured in hospital at Udgir. Madhav Shankar Telang and Kamalbai Telang took him by ambulance in Govt. Hospital at Latur, as he was referred by Doctor. P.W.8-Narayan, ASI has further stated that after recording his statement he read over it to deceased who admitted its contents and obtained his thumb impression. Thereafter he also singed the same. Accordingly, he proved statement at Exh.51. 13. When both these statements at Exh.37 and 51 are considered and compared, there appears material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the contents of same, as in subsequent statement at Exh.51, there is no mention or involvement of co-accused Sonabai and Subhash about their holding Suresh and appellant assaulting in his abdomen by knife. Similarly, in Exh.51 Suresh has not stated as to how he appeared on the scene of offence; while in his first statement at Exh.37, he has stated that he happened to reach scene of offence on seeing assault by appellant on P.W.10-Madhav. 14. P.W.7-Vilas Jogdand, Nayab Tahsildar has then recorded third statement of deceased. His evidence reveals that on 27.12.2010, he received letter from P.W.8 Narayan, A.S.I. Gandhi Chowk Police Station at 8.00 a.m. requesting to record the statement of Suresh; who was admitted in the hospital and accordingly at 8.45 a.m. he visited the hospital and contacted P.W.15-Dr. 14. P.W.7-Vilas Jogdand, Nayab Tahsildar has then recorded third statement of deceased. His evidence reveals that on 27.12.2010, he received letter from P.W.8 Narayan, A.S.I. Gandhi Chowk Police Station at 8.00 a.m. requesting to record the statement of Suresh; who was admitted in the hospital and accordingly at 8.45 a.m. he visited the hospital and contacted P.W.15-Dr. Pranita Patil and requested her to examine the injured and certify whether he was physically fit to make statement. He further stated that accordingly said doctor on examining Suresh, certified that he was in a position to make statement and accordingly made medical endorsement and thereafter he recorded statement wherein he asked the deceased about his family, when he was married, name of his wife, occupation, which questions were replied by him and was enquired as to how he was brought in the hospital, to which Suresh replied that he was stabbed by knife. On enquiring about the incident, Suresh Stated that it took place on 25.12.2010 at 7.30 p.m. and on being enquired about the incident stated that when he was behind Maruti Temple at Ambegaon, the appellant along with Subhash and Sonabai abused him. Nobody rescued him and appellant gave knife blow in his abdomen on the left side hand and chin due to which he fell down. He has further stated about his relatives informing police on phone and on their arrival, shifting them to hospital at Udgir and from there to Latur. Suresh further stated that the reason of assault was, as he received compensation amount in respect of land which was acquired for construction of lake. He has also stated names of persons who were present at the time of incident like Govind, Umakant and Kashinath and other persons. He has further stated that action be taken against the appellant and co-accused. P.W.7- Vilas, Naib Tahsildar thereafter read over contents of statement to Suresh and on his admitting the same, obtained his thumb impression and he also signed the same and has proved on record at Exh.49. 15. He has further stated that action be taken against the appellant and co-accused. P.W.7- Vilas, Naib Tahsildar thereafter read over contents of statement to Suresh and on his admitting the same, obtained his thumb impression and he also signed the same and has proved on record at Exh.49. 15. On comparing third dying declaration Exh.49 with first two dying declarations Exh.37 and 51, respectively it appears to be again inconsistent to the earlier two statements, wherein it is stated that co-accused Subhash and Sonabai assaulted him and appellant gave knife blow on the left side of abdomen when he fell down on the ground, however, in Exh.49 he has involved co-accused only by way of abuses to him. Similarly, there is no reference by Suresh as to under what circumstances, he happened to reach to the spot. He has not whispered about assault on P.W.10-Madhav, as stated in one of his earlier statements nor he has assigned any specific role to co-accused about their holding his hands while appellant giving blow in his stomach as alleged, in the second statement. In view of this material inconsistency found in the multiple dying declarations at Exh.37, 51 and 49 involved in this case as above, none of these documents appear to be convincing, to be acted upon to base the conviction of appellant. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant has thus, urged that the legal position as far as it relates to inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations, is by now settled. Learned Counsel accordingly placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Uka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 1814 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1215]. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, has observed that the prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the dying declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous consideration. If the dying declaration is not free from doubt about truthfulness as well as voluntariness, then the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Further reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the observations of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. If the dying declaration is not free from doubt about truthfulness as well as voluntariness, then the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Further reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the observations of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Parveen Kumar, 2005 (9) SCC 769 , wherein it is observed that the cases, which entirely rest on multiple dying declarations having inconsistency, then while appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the Court, the Court must view evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its genuineness and truthfulness. The mere fact that two different versions are given but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting the named person. The Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declaration. It is well settled that the piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chinnamma Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2816 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that contents of two dying declarations are highly contradictory as to infliction of injury by the appellant and the motive given in the two dying declarations is entirely different, in such circumstances, conviction cannot be based on such dying declarations. Similar view is also taken by the Apex Court in the case of Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1999 SC 3255 : [1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1784 (S.C.)]. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court, in the case of Gopal Vs. State of M.P., 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1532 (S.C.), wherein it is observed that - where two dying declarations are on record then the Court has to consider nature of inconsistencies in the light of various surrounding facts and circumstances. State of M.P., 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1532 (S.C.), wherein it is observed that - where two dying declarations are on record then the Court has to consider nature of inconsistencies in the light of various surrounding facts and circumstances. As such from the above stated legal position, it reveals that it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case, if a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration, if the statement is consistent throughout. But in a case involving multiple dying declaration, if some material inconsistencies are noticed then benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 17. The appellant in support of his defence had examined accused-Subhash, who has stated that the appellant is his son and co-accused Sonabai is his wife. There was partition between him and his step brother Suresh, the deceased in respect of their ancestral land, way back in the year 1972. Since then they were separately residing. On the point of incident, he has deposed that the incident took place where there was no source of light as no electric supply was available on that day in the village. When the appellant had went out of the house at about 7.45 p.m., he and his wife, were in the house and heard hue and cry on the road and noticed that the appellant was present on the spot, due to which they rushed on the spot and found that scuffle was in progress between and appellant and P.W.10-Madhav. He further stated that he and his wife Sonabai, therefore, made an attempt to pacify the quarrel. At that time, deceased came on the spot from his house having knife in his hand and assaulted him, his wife by giving three blows to her and on chest on the right side. He further stated that appellant at that time rushed towards him asking deceased and P.W.10-Madhav why they were assaulting. Due to his intervention, scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased who was having knife in his hand. However, since it was night, he could not see as to who sustained injuries and by whom. The appellant to substantiate their case and to corroborate evidence of D.W.1-Subhash Chaudhari, had examined D.W.2-Dr. Due to his intervention, scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased who was having knife in his hand. However, since it was night, he could not see as to who sustained injuries and by whom. The appellant to substantiate their case and to corroborate evidence of D.W.1-Subhash Chaudhari, had examined D.W.2-Dr. Rajkumar Jagtap, who has stated that on 25.12.2010, he was on duty at Deoni Rural Hospital and on that day co-accused Sonabai and Subhash were referred to P.H.C., Deoni for medical examination and accordingly on examining co-accused Sonabai, he noted following injuries. i. Clean cut wound over left breast. It was oblique in nature, size was 3 cm x 1 cm x 2 mm. Its nature was simple. It was caused by hard and sharp weapon within six hours before the examination. ii. Clean cut wound below left breast. Horizontal in direction, it was of size 3 x ½ cm x 2 mm. Its nature was simple. It was caused by hard and sharp object. iii. Clean cut wound below left forearm. Its direction was oblique. Its size was 10 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. It was caused by hard and sharp object within six hours. He has further stated that said injuries are possible by knife from its sharp edge and has accordingly issued medical certificate at Exh.106. In his further evidence, he has stated that on the same day he examined co-accused Subhash and found following injuries. i. Clean cut wound over left lower chest. It was of clean margin. Size of the injury was 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. Its nature was simple, caused by hard and sharp object within six hours before his examination. ii. Imprint contusion over center back, oblique parallel in direction. It was of size of 7 cm x 3 cm. Its nature was simple. It was caused by hard and blunt object. It was caused within six hours before the examination. Above injuries were certified to be possible by sharp edged knife, while injury No. 2 is certified to be possible by object like stone. He has proved injury certificate of Subhash at Exh. 108. The medical certificates on record, respectively of Sonabai and Maroti corroborate evidence of this Medical Officer, as well as evidence of D.W. No. 1-Subhash examined by the appellant. He has proved injury certificate of Subhash at Exh. 108. The medical certificates on record, respectively of Sonabai and Maroti corroborate evidence of this Medical Officer, as well as evidence of D.W. No. 1-Subhash examined by the appellant. From the evidence as noted above, in-fact, the probable cause put forth on behalf of the appellant of their sustaining injuries in the quarrel which took place between deceased Suresh and P.W.10-Madhav, thus, appears to be more probable. 18. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution has failed to establish charges levelled against the appellant. On the contrary the case put forth on behalf of the appellant appears to be more convincing. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result the appeal succeeds. 19. Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, is quashed and set aside. ii) Appellant - Dhondiram s/o. Subhash Chaudhari shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. iii) Fine amount, if paid, shall be returned to the appellant. 20. In view of decision of the appeal, Crimina1 Application No. 3153 of 2013 filed by the appellant being infructuous, stands disposed of as rejected. Appeal allowed.