JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The present appeal is by the accused who are three in number who have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304 (II), 504, 506, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- to each of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, apart from other punishments of imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 of Indian Penal Code, which were to run concurrently and of the fine payable, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was to be paid to the wife of the victim by way of compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Court below was not justified in convicting the accused on the basis of the evidence which was full of inconsistencies and contradictions. When there was no support by any of the alleged eye-witnesses in so far as the incident is concerned and the sole eye-witness on whose evidence the Court below has placed total reliance is also not acceptable for the simple reason that as discussed by the Court below itself that there is wide variance as to the manner in which the incident had taken place according to the said witness as stated by her in her First Information Report and as stated by her in her evidence before the Court below and in the face of such contradictory evidence the Court below was not justified in re-conciling the statements and arriving at a finding that the accused had willfully assaulted and caused the death of the deceased -husband of PW-3. 4. In order to appreciate this primary contention it is necessary to take stock of the facts of the case. 4. In order to appreciate this primary contention it is necessary to take stock of the facts of the case. It was the case of the prosecution that on 23.03.2008 at about 8.30 PM accused Nos.2 and 3 who were not on good terms with the husband of PW-3, one Dilip, are said to have come armed with clubs and when the deceased Dilip was sitting under tree along with his family members namely, PW-3 wife of the deceased, PW-20 mother of the deceased, PW-21 father of the deceased, PW-22 brother of the deceased and PW-23 sister-in-law of the deceased, and abused him in foul language as follows: xxx xxx Saying so, had started attacking him, at which accused No.1 Suresh, the brother of Dilip, tried to intervene and questioned accused Nos.2 and 3 as to why they were attacking his brother and he was holding a naked knife and at that point of time, accused Nos.2 and 3 are said to have pushed Dilip on to accused No.1 and in the process Dilip was stabbed in the chest area and started profusely bleeding and had collapsed on the spot and had died. It is in this background that a complaint having been lodged and charge sheet was filed. The Magistrate having taken cognizance under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the accused and registered the case in Crime No.533/2008 and thereafter after further proceedings the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Bidar and the Sessions Court having framed the charges and the accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had tendered evidence and examined PW1 to PW-24 and had got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 apart from material objects. It is on the basis of such evidence the Court below had framed the following points for consideration: “(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 23.03.2008, at 8.30 P.M, in front of house of Kashinath at Rajola Thanda, the accused No.2 Anil and the Accused No.3 Jaisingh have abused to the injured Dilip in filthy language and threaten to his life, beaten with clubs on his back caused bodily pain with common intention, when he questioned the act of the said accused at Kitta prior to 15 days in the flour mill. Thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable U/S 504, 506, 324 R/w 34 of I.P.C.? (2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, in the above said incident, the A1 rushed towards the A2 and A3 holding knife abusing to them and questing their act of beating the Dilip stating that as to why they are beating to his brother. At that time the A2 and A3 with an intention to kill him pushed the Dilip towards the A1, who was rushing with knife knowingly that, if the knife blow is given to the Dilip, he will die. In the consequences, the knife hold by the A1, who was rushing towards the A2 and A3, hit to the left portion of the chest of the Dilip. He sustained grievous blood injury and died on the spot. A1 was know the consequences of his act of rushing with knife to assault on the A2 and A3 and stab to Dilip due to the push of Dilip by A2 and A3 towards him. Thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable U/S 304 R/w 34 of I.P.C.?” The Court below has answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the affirmative and convicted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. In so far as the evidence of the other witnesses are concerned, the Court below has discussed the content of the evidence of each of the witnesses at length and has found that apart from the formal witnesses the evidence of the other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and it was entirely the evidence of PW-3, the wife of the deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the entire incident at close quarters, the Court has found the accused to be guilty of the offences alleged. 6. The primary ground urged by the learned counsel for the accused does require some attention. There is substance in his contention. The relevant portion of the complaint which has been extracted by the Court below as well, reads as follows: xxx xxx 7. 6. The primary ground urged by the learned counsel for the accused does require some attention. There is substance in his contention. The relevant portion of the complaint which has been extracted by the Court below as well, reads as follows: xxx xxx 7. Contrary to the statements made in the First Information Report as above, the witness has given a completely different version to claim that accused Nos.2 and 3 held her husband by his arms, on either side and accused No.1 had deliberately stabbed him with force on the left side of the chest thereby causing his death. These are contrary statements which cannot be reconciled, for it is evident that Suresh was the brother of Dilip and even according to the learned Government Pleader there was apparently no intention to cause the death of Dilip by Suresh. In fact he had tried to intervene and protect Dilip from accused Nos.2 and 3 and if that were so, evidence tendered by PW-3 to differently claim, during the course of her evidence before the Court, that accused Nos.2 and 3 had held the arms of the deceased to enable accused No.1 to stab him is totally contradictory and cannot be reconciled. Though the death of Dilip in the incident cannot be denied, unless the prosecution establishes its case categorically, as to the manner in which it has occurred and with certainty, it would result in a miscarriage of justice, in the Court drawing its own conclusions and trying to reconcile two wholly contradictory statements, as to the manner in which the incident has occurred and as to the intention attributed to each of the accused. This is evident from a comparison of the statements made by the key witness PW-3 in her First Information Report and her evidence before the Court below. It is also evident that the trial Court was again in a dilemma as to whether the accused are at all to be convicted, which is why it has resulted in the Court tempering its judgment by imposing a nominal punishment of three years of rigorous imprisonment apart from other punishments imposed which were to run concurrently, though it would have attracted a much more severe punishment if at all the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. 8. Therefore, in the absence of any other supporting evidence, in so far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, it was not prudent nor in accordance with the principles of established criminal jurisprudence to have chosen to reconcile the wholly contradictory statements made by PW-3. On that ground alone the judgment of the Court below requires to be set at naught. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction against the accused is set aside. The bail bond furnished by the accused shall stand discharged and the fine amount shall be refunded to the accused.