JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 235/1989 registered at Police Station, Sanganer, District Jaipur qua commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 & 341 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC). 2. Prosecution story in brief was that on 01.07.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. complainant had came out of his house to get fodder for his buffalo. Wife of the complainant was working in the fields. Accused were his real brothers and were living in kacha house. He was living in pacca house. Accused were using water from the joint house. When the complainant objected, accused started beating him. Accused Laddu gave an iron rod blow on the head of the complainant. Other accused gave stick blows to the complainant. Appellant was rescued by Galli, Harli and Santi and was got admitted in the hospital. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the accused. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined sixteen witnesses. Accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that they had been involved in this case due to land dispute. 4. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 31.03.1992 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant Laddu under Section 307 I.P.C. Co-accused of the appellant were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely involved in this case as land dispute was pending between the parties. On an earlier occasion also appellant had been falsely involved by the complainant in a hurt case, but the appellant was acquitted by the trial Court. As per the Medico Legal Report Ex. P-1 the attendant had given the history that the injured had suffered injuries in a fight, which had taken place at about 11.30 p.m.- 12.00 'o' clock at night on 01.07.1989. Complainant was examined on 02.07.1989. Injuries were opined to be fresh by the doctor. Hence, the story put-forth by the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place at about 3.00 p.m. on 01.07.1989 stood belied. 6. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeal. 7. Complainant Phool Chand while appearing in the witness box as PW-2, deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the complainant was corroborated by his wife Ganeshi PW-1. 8. PW-3 Dr. 6. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeal. 7. Complainant Phool Chand while appearing in the witness box as PW-2, deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the complainant was corroborated by his wife Ganeshi PW-1. 8. PW-3 Dr. Vivekanand deposed that on 02.07.1989 at about 7.40 a.m. he had medically examined injured Phool Chand and had found one injury on his right parietal region. The said injury had been inflicted with a blunt weapon. He had advised for X-ray. After receipt of X-ray Report, the said injury was opined to be grievous in nature. 9. PW-4 Harli, PW-5 Nandlal, PW-8 Santi, PW-15 Ram Pal did not support the prosecution story. 10. PW-6 Mangli, mother of the complainant, deposed that on the day of occurrence Phool Chand had came with a stick and had hit Gopi. When they tried to rescue Gopi, Mohru suffered injuries. Phool Chand fell on the stones and suffered injury. 11. PW-7 Galli deposed that on the day of occurrence she came out of the house on hearing noise. Phool Chand was lying unconscious. She ran to the spot. Gopi, Laddu, Babulal and Mohru were also present there. Phool Chand had suffered injuries on his head. She was told by the wife of Phool Chand that her brother-in-laws had given injuries to her husband. 12. Thus, in the present case, as per the prosecution witnesses, occurrence had taken place on 01.07.1989 in the afternoon. Complainant and appellant are brothers. Ocular version with regard to time of occurrence is not corroborated by medical evidence. Ex. P-1 is the Medico Legal Examination Report of the injured. As per the same the injury was found to be fresh. Since, the injured was examined at about 7.40 a.m. on 02.07.1989, injury which had been allegedly inflicted at about 3.00 p.m. on 01.07.1989 could not have been opined by the doctor as fresh injury. As per the history given by the attendant at the time of preparation of Ex. P-1, injured had suffered injuries at night on 01.07.1989, in a fight at about 11.30 p.m.-12 'o' clock. This shows that the prosecution has not come with true facts and has suppressed the genesis of the case. The time of the occurrence has not been correctly given by the prosecution. The said fact makes the prosecution story doubtful. 13. P-1, injured had suffered injuries at night on 01.07.1989, in a fight at about 11.30 p.m.-12 'o' clock. This shows that the prosecution has not come with true facts and has suppressed the genesis of the case. The time of the occurrence has not been correctly given by the prosecution. The said fact makes the prosecution story doubtful. 13. Parties are closely related to each other and it is probable that the appellant might have been falsely involved in this case, due to some property dispute pending between the parties. Although, complainant and his wife have supported the prosecution case but the other independent witnesses and the mother of the complainant have not supported the prosecution version that the appellant had given an iron rod blow on the head of the injured. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused. Whenever, there arises doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. Since, in the present case, the prosecution story is rendered doubtful on account of discrepancy between the ocular version and medical evidence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Consequently, judgment/order passed by the Trial Court dated 31.03.1992 are set aside.