ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The appellant who was the third accused in the sessions trial held in respect of a charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C. had been convicted by the learned Trial Court under the aforesaid provisions of law. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. In appeal, before the High Court, the conviction was not challenged and it is only the quantum of the sentence that was assailed. The High Court maintained the conviction and altered the sentence to the period already undergone which is about two years and six months. Against the aforesaid order of the High Court, a special leave petition was filed seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court on merits. Leave has been granted by this Court pursuant to which the appeal is before us. We, therefore, proceed to consider the correctness of the conviction of the accused-appellant on merits. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.08.1998 P.W-2 Ranbir while returning home was accosted by three accused (who are brothers) at about 8.00 p.m. in village Bara Gaon, District Karnal. According to the prosecution while accused no. 2, one Rajinder, and the present appellant (Accused No.3) forcibly held back P.W.2 Ranbir, accused-appellant no. 1 Surinder inflicted a knife blow (kitchen knife) on the right thigh of P.W.2 causing profuse bleeding and leading to his hospitalization for a period of nearly 10 days. The prosecution has further alleged that the knife blow by accused no.1 viz. Surinder was aimed at the stomach of P.W.-2, but as P.W. 2 had jumped to avoid the impact of the blow, the same was caused on the thigh. 4. The case of the prosecution appears to have been built up primarily on the evidence of eye witnesses P.W.1 viz. Satish and P.W.2 Ranbir, the injured. The evidence of the aforesaid two prosecution witnesses is what has been indicated above while narrating the prosecution version and is not necessary to be narrated in any further detail. Both the aforesaid witnesses were believed by the learned Trial Court. 5. From the materials on record, it also appears that accused No. 1 viz. Surinder had suffered as many as nine different injuries including four incised wounds on different parts of the body. Both the aforesaid witnesses were believed by the learned Trial Court. 5. From the materials on record, it also appears that accused No. 1 viz. Surinder had suffered as many as nine different injuries including four incised wounds on different parts of the body. He had reported to the Government City Civil Hospital, Karnal, at about 11.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence i.e. 02.09.1998 and was treated by D.W-3 doctor (Dr. S.L. Verma, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal). It may be necessary to note at this stage that the accused no. 1 viz. Surinder had remained in hospital as an indoor patient from 02.08.1998 to 10.08.1998 (eight days) for the treatment of injuries sustained by him. In the Report prepared by D.W-3 (doctor)it is also stated that the injuries could be due to assault or can even be self inflicted. 6. Another significant fact is that the prosecution has not explained, in any manner, the injuries sustained by accused no. 1. The said injuries apparently were brought to the notice of the investigating officer P.W.-8 by one Head Constable Virender Singh who had handed over to the Investigating Officer a rukka regarding the admission of accused no.1 viz. Surinder in the Civil Hospital. In his deposition P.W.-8 clearly stated that pursuant to the receipt of rukka he had tried to record the statement of accused Surinder and in the first instance the Doctor did not permit any statement to be recorded as the accused was unfit to make a statement. P.W-8 has further deposed that eventually he recorded the statement of accused no. 1 viz. Surinder and that on the basis of the said statement he was satisfied that an offence under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. were made out against the complainant party. It is admitted by P.W-8 that despite the above no separate case was registered against the injured/complainant party. 7. It will not be necessary to burden this order by referring to the series of pronouncements of this Court virtually settling the law that when the accused or anyone of them suffers injuries, the prosecution has to explain such injuries. In the present case there was no attempt made to explain the injuries on the accused no. 1 viz. Surinder though he had suffered as many as nine such injuries and had remained as an indoor patient in the City Civil Hospital for eight days. In the present case there was no attempt made to explain the injuries on the accused no. 1 viz. Surinder though he had suffered as many as nine such injuries and had remained as an indoor patient in the City Civil Hospital for eight days. In the aforesaid facts, we cannot appreciate the conclusion of the learned Trial Court to the effect that in view of the medical opinion tendered by D.W.3 doctor, the injuries sustained by the accused viz. Surinder were self inflicted. The opinion tendered by the Doctor is a mere opinion which though would deserve great respect would not bind the Court to ignore facts proved by the evidence on record. In fact we would consider it proper to hold that the injuries for which accused Surinder had to remain in hospital for eight days cannot ordinarily be self-inflicted and in the absence of strong and compelling evidence to substantiate such a fact no such conclusion ought to have been drawn by the learned Trial Court merely on the basis of the opinion of the Doctor (D.W-3). 8. The above facts would demonstrate a serious lacuna in the prosecution case which would substantiate the version of the accused as unfolded in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the aforesaid statement of accused Surinder it has been clearly stated that he was compelled to use the kitchen knife to defend himself as he was attacked by P.W.-2 with a gandasa. That apart the accused Surinder had clearly stated that accused nos. 2 and 3 were not present at the spot. In the version of third appellant (accused no. 3) recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code he had set up a plea of alibi and had examined D.W.-4 (Ram Pal Sharma) in support thereof. In addition, there is the evidence of D.W.2 viz. Sant Lal Phogat, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the accused which would belie the prosecution version. All the above facts would lead us to conclude that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused-appellant. In addition, there is the evidence of D.W.2 viz. Sant Lal Phogat, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the accused which would belie the prosecution version. All the above facts would lead us to conclude that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused-appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Trial Court and the High Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. including the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court and acquit the accused-appellant of the charges levelled against him.