JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals arising out of the judgment dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour, district at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 11-N/7 of 2008. Learned trial Judge has convicted appellant Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused No.3’) of the charge under Sections 341, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 341 IPC and three years as well as to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 307 IPC. He, however, was acquitted of the charge under Sections 324, 323 and 506 IPC. His co-accused Sita Ram, Shobha Ram and Jagat Singh, respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 in connected appeal (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4’), however, were acquitted of all the charges framed against each of them. 2. While Accused No. 3 is aggrieved by the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against him by learned trial Judge has preferred the present appeal with a prayer to quash and set aside the same, the State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved by his acquittal of the charge under Sections 324, 323 and 506 IPC as well as the acquittal of his co-accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of all the charges framed against each of them has preferred the connected appeal with a prayer to quash and set aside the same and after convicting them for all the charges, to sentence them in accordance with law. 3. The prosecution case, in a nut-shell, is that on 4.3.2007 around 7.00 p.m. at village Dandiwala Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, accused No.3, Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh has assaulted Sohan Singh (PW-3) with a Kulhadi (axe), Ext. P-8. When PW-1 Hira Singh arrived at the spot on hearing cries of PW-3, accused No. 1 Sita Ram and accused No. 4 Jagat Singh caught hold the said witness and it is accused No. 1 who gave blow of danda (Ext. P-6) on his head and thereby caused injuries not only grievous in nature but dangerous to the life of Sohan Singh and Hira Singh aforesaid. 4. As a matter of fact, PW-3 Sohan Singh is resident of Village Ambua in Tehsil Sirmour. P-6) on his head and thereby caused injuries not only grievous in nature but dangerous to the life of Sohan Singh and Hira Singh aforesaid. 4. As a matter of fact, PW-3 Sohan Singh is resident of Village Ambua in Tehsil Sirmour. On 4.3.2007 being Holi festival, he had come to the house of PW-1 Hira Singh, who happens to be uncle of PW-3. PW-1 when returned to his native place village Dandiwala around 6.00 p.m., his wife complained that accused No. 1 accompanied by his co-accused had come to their house and abused her. PW-1 has taken the complaint made by his wife lightly. However, around 7.00 p.m., his nephew PW-3 was on his way to village Ambua, his native place, accused No.1 and his co-accused Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh started quarreling with him. Accused No. 3 had attached PW-3 with axe, Ext. P- 8 and caused injury on his head. As a result thereof Sohan Singh fell unconscious. It is PW-1 Hira Singh, who had seen accused No.3 inflicting injury with the axe, Ext. P-8 on the head of PW-3. He came to rescue of PW-3, but of no avail. Accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 both had caught hold him and while accused No. 1 inflicted blow of Gandasi, Ext. P-6 on his head, accused No. 2 Shobha Ram and accused No. 4 Jagat Singh both have inflicted danda blows on his person with danda Ext. P-7. The villagers gathered on the spot and they witnessed the occurrence. PW-1 and PW-3 were removed to the hospital at Paonta Sahib for treatment. PW-3 Sohan Singh was later on shifted to a private hospital, whereas, PW-1 was given treatment in Government hospital. On the same day, PW-1 went to the police station, Paonta Sahib and lodged the FIR Ext. PW-1/A. The police has conducted the investigation. Blood stained clothes i.e. shirt, Ext. P-1, trouser Ext. P-2 and vest Ext. P-3 of PW-1 Hira Singh, whereas, shirt Ext. P-4 and pant Ext. P-5 of PW-3 Sohan Singh were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/B. The Gandasi, Ext. P-6 and danda Ext. P-7 were allegedly produced by accused No.1 and his co-accused Jagat Singh on 11.03.2007, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-2/A. The axe, Ext. P-3 of PW-1 Hira Singh, whereas, shirt Ext. P-4 and pant Ext. P-5 of PW-3 Sohan Singh were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/B. The Gandasi, Ext. P-6 and danda Ext. P-7 were allegedly produced by accused No.1 and his co-accused Jagat Singh on 11.03.2007, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-2/A. The axe, Ext. P-8 was produced by accused Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh during the course of investigation and it was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-6/A. 5. During the course of investigation, it transpired that accused persons by not allowing PW-3 to move ahead had restrained him unlawfully and also assaulted him with axe, Ext. P-8. Similarly, PW-1 Hira Singh was assaulted with Gandasi, Ext. P-6 and also thrashed with stick, Ext. P-7. PW-1 had also received injuries on his person inflicted by Gandasi, Ext. P-6 and danda Ext. P-7. Another injured PW-7 Bhav Singh was inflicted danda blow by accused No. 3 on his head and back side. PW-1 was medically examined by PW-10 Dr. Kamaal Pasha in civil hospital, Paonta Sahib, on an application Ext. PW- 10/A filed by the police for the purpose. His MLC Ext. PW- 10/B was accordingly issued. Similarly, PW-7 Bhav Singh was also medically examined by PW-10, consequent upon the application, Ext. PW-10/C moved by the police for the purpose and after his medical examination was conducted, the MLC Ext. PW-10/D issued in this regard. PW-3 Sohan Singh was medically examined by PW-11 Dr. Inder Jeet Singh vide MLC Ext. PW-11/A. 6. The police during further course of investigation had prepared the spot map Ext. PW-12/A and taken the photographs Ext. PW-5/A-1 to Ext. PW-5/A- 4. The blood stained clothes of the injured and also the weapons of offence were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report. The report Ext. PW-12/B was received. 7. The police on the investigation of the case has prepared the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and presented the same in the Court. Since an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Sirmour, District at Nahan. The same came to be tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour. 8. Since an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Sirmour, District at Nahan. The same came to be tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour. 8. It is seen that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour on finding a case made out prima-facie against all the accused has framed the charges under Sections 341, 307, 324, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against each of them. Since they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the prosecution was called upon to produce the evidence in support of its case. 9. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The material prosecution witnesses are injured Hira Singh (PW-1), Sohan Singh (PW-3) and Bhav Singh (PW-7). The remaining prosecution witnesses i.e. Nishi Kant (PW-2), Kumari Shalu (PW-4) have, however, been examined to give eye witness count of the occurrence. PW-2 is the witness to recovery of clothes of injured PW-1 and PW-3 and also the recovery of Gandasi, Ext. P-6 and danda, Ext. P-7 at the instance of accused No. 1 and accused No.4. He has proved the seizure memo Ext. PW-2/A. Dayal Singh (PW-6) is the witness to recovery memo Ext. PW-6/A vide which axe Ext. P-8 after having produced by accused Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh was taken into possession. Sh. Rajinder Singh (PW-5) is the Photographer who has proved the photographs Ext. PW- 5/A-1 to Ext. PW-5/A-4 and negatives Ext. PW-5/A-5. The remaining witnesses are Dr. Kamal Pasha (PW-10), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, who had examined injured Hira Singh and Bhav Singh, whereas, Dr. Inder Jeet Singh (PW-11) who had examined PW-3 Sohan Singh. The I.O. of the case is Gurbax Singh (PW- 12). PW-8 and PW-9 are the police officials who remained associated during the investigation of the case. 10. On the other hand, the accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C have denied the prosecution case either being wrong or for want of knowledge and in their defence, came forward with the version that it is the complainant party was aggressor. They were assaulted by the complainant party with ‘Gandasi and lathis. On raising alarm by them, the complainant party i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7 ran away from the spot and may have suffered the injuries by way of fall. They were assaulted by the complainant party with ‘Gandasi and lathis. On raising alarm by them, the complainant party i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7 ran away from the spot and may have suffered the injuries by way of fall. The FIR they registered against the members of the complainant party was prior in time and the FIR against them registered at the instance of PW-1 was counter blast to the FIR they lodged. According to the accused, they are innocent and in an amicable settlement arrived at between both parties, they have withdrawn the case which was registered at their instance against the complainant party. 11. They have examined DW-1 Sh. Layak Ram, Civil Ahlmad in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, who had produced the record of Criminal Case No. 109/2 of 2009/2007 titled State of H.P. V. Hira Singh. Smt. Sunita Devi is DW-2, who has proved the compromise Ext. DW- 2/A. PW-3 is the Sub-Inspector Harjit Singh, who had conducted the investigation of the case registered vide FIR No. 90/07 at the instance of Jagat Singh, accused-respondent No. 4 herein against the members of the complainant party i.e. PW-1 Hira Singh, PW-3 Sohan Singh and PW-7 Bhav Singh. As per his version, on completion of investigation challan was filed by him in the Court. As per his further version in cross-examination case he investigated against the complainant party was ultimately compromised. DW-4 is Jogi Ram. Though he is resident of different village, however, according to him on 4.3.2007, he had gone to the house of his material uncle at Dandiwala. As per his version, it is PW-1 Hira Singh and 3-4 other persons came to the house of accused party and started beating accused NO. 4 Jagat Singh and accused No. 3 Jasmant Singh. The accused persons snatched dandas and axe from PW-1 Hira Singh and his co-accused and when the said witness tried to run away from the spot along with his co-accused, they fell on the sloppy road and sustained injuries. According to him, the members of the complainant party were not beaten by the accused persons. 12. The accused persons snatched dandas and axe from PW-1 Hira Singh and his co-accused and when the said witness tried to run away from the spot along with his co-accused, they fell on the sloppy road and sustained injuries. According to him, the members of the complainant party were not beaten by the accused persons. 12. As said at the very out set, learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record has convicted accused Jasmant Singh for the commission of offence punishable under Section 341 and 307 IPC, whereas, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 324, 323 and 506 IPC. His co-accused Sita Ram, Shobha Ram and Jagat Singh were, however, acquitted of all the charges framed against each of them. The appellant-convict Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh has questioned the findings of his conviction and sentence in the present appeal on the grounds inter-alia that the complainant party was inimical towards the accused on account of land dispute. On the day of occurrence, hot exchanges took place between complainant PW-1 Hira Singh and Multan Singh. Complainant called his nephew Sohan Singh (PW-3) and Bhav Singh (PW-7) from village Ambua and Khazan Singh from village Jamna and attacked the accused with Gandasi and sticks. They retaliated in their defence and in this process, the complainant party has received injuries. The FIR bearing No. 90/07 was lodged by them against the complainant party in Police Station, Paonta Sahib under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 IPC on 4.3.2007 itself and FIR No. 91/07 against them was lodged by PW-1 Hira Singh under Sections 323, 325, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. thereafter as a counter-blast to the FIR they had already registered. They were not the aggressor and it is rather the complainant party having Gandasi and lathis in their hand attacked them first. Therefore, there is no question of causing injury on the head of PW-3 Sohan Singh by him with axe, Ext. P-8 intentionally to kill him. The prosecution evidence that they restrained the said witness from moving ahead when he was walking near their house according to the appellant-convict is false. Therefore, there is no question of causing injury on the head of PW-3 Sohan Singh by him with axe, Ext. P-8 intentionally to kill him. The prosecution evidence that they restrained the said witness from moving ahead when he was walking near their house according to the appellant-convict is false. The prosecution, as such, has failed to bring guilt home to the appellant-convict with the help of cogent and reliable evidence and as such, he is also entitled to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him as from the evidence available on record, no case under Section 341 and 307 IPC is also made out against him. 13. In the connected appeal, the grouse of the appellant-State is that not only accused No. 3 Jasmant Singh has been illegally acquitted of the charge under Sections 324, 323 and 506 IPC, which was framed against him but his co-accused Sita Ram, Shobha Ram and Jagat Singh have also been erroneously acquitted of all the charges framed against each of them. As per further grouse of the appellant-State, learned trial Court while convicting accused Jasmant Singh only under Section 341 and 307 IPC and acquitting his co-accused of all the charges framed against them has erred in law as well as on facts also. It has thus been urged that all the accused should have been convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences against which charges were framed against each of them. Their acquittal is stated to be contrary to the evidence available on record. The findings recorded by learned trial Court while acquitting accused Jasmant Singh of the charges under Sections 324, 323 and 506 IPC and his co-accused under Sections 341, 307, 324, 323 and 506 IPC, the evidence has not been appreciated in its right perspective and rather in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner. 14. On hearing Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the appellant-convict Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh, whereas, the accused-respondents in the connected appeal and learned Additional Advocate General as well as on re-appraisal of the entire evidence available on record, the only question arises for adjudication by us is that the prosecution has successfully pleaded and proved its case against the accused-respondents or not. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the appellant-convict Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh, whereas, the accused-respondents in the connected appeal and learned Additional Advocate General as well as on re-appraisal of the entire evidence available on record, the only question arises for adjudication by us is that the prosecution has successfully pleaded and proved its case against the accused-respondents or not. In order to decide the point so arisen for our consideration, the elaboration of the evidence available on record is required in the light of the law of the land. 15. The deed of compromise Ext. DW-2/A is a vital piece of evidence in this case. As a matter of fact, there is no denial to the amicable settlement arrived at between the complainant and the accused party during the course of trial. The suggestions to this effect given to the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Hira Singh, PW-3 Sohan Singh and PW-7 Bhav Singh have not been disputed even by them also. The I.O. of the case who registered FIR No. 90/07 at the instance of accused No. 4 Jagat Singh against the complainant party has stepped into the witness box as DW-3 and has admitted that the said case FIR No. 90/07 was compromised between the parties. Now if this document is seen, the aggressor seems to be the complainant party. The complainant PW-1 Hira Singh in that case while admitting fault on his part sought pardon of the accused party herein and likewise the accused party also sought pardon of the complainant party i.e. Hira Singh etc. in this case. The case registered against the complainant party was disposed of on the basis of compromise because the challan filed against them was for the commission of compoundable offences. The present trial against the accused persons, however, continued may be on account of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, they allegedly committed is not compoundable. The facts, however, remain that it is the complainant party, who was the aggressor. 16. Not only this but the complainant party has withheld the material facts while reporting the matter to the police to the reasons best known to it. It is difficult to believe that PW-3 Sohan Singh alone had come to celebrate the Holi in the house of his uncle PW-1 Hira Singh on the day of occurrence. 16. Not only this but the complainant party has withheld the material facts while reporting the matter to the police to the reasons best known to it. It is difficult to believe that PW-3 Sohan Singh alone had come to celebrate the Holi in the house of his uncle PW-1 Hira Singh on the day of occurrence. It is again difficult to believe that in the evening around 7.00 p.m., he was alone while on the way to his house at village Ambua. PW-4 Kumar Shalu has categorically stated that her cousin Sohan Singh (PW-3) Bhav Singh (PW-7) and Khazan Singh had come to their house from village Ambua to celebrate Holi festival. They left for their native place around 6.00-6.30 p.m. She heard noise from the side of the house of accused No. 1. Her father rushed to that side, she also followed him and when reached near the house of accused No.1, noticed that her cousin Sohan Singh, Bhav Singh were being beaten up by the accused persons. The complainant, however, while lodging the FIR Ext. PW-1/A has withheld the factum of visit to his house on that day by his another nephews Bhav Singh and Khazan Singh. Not only this, but he has also withheld the factum of they all left for their village together in the evening, as according to him it is Sohan Singh, PW-3 who alone had come there and left for his native place village Ambua around 7.00 p.m. It is, however, not so but PW-3 Sohan Singh and his two brothers Bhav Singh and Khazan Singh had also come to village Dandiwala, the house of the complainant. PW-7 has also stated so while in the witness box. As a matter of fact, he had corroborated the testimony of his cousin Kumari Shalu (PW-4). 17. Interestingly enough, complainant PW-1 did not disclose the name of his other two nephews namely Bhav Singh and Khazan Singh even in his statement recorded during the course of trial. Therefore, he has withheld material information from the Court. He, as such, is a liar, therefore, his testimony that he was away to Paonta Sahib on that day and returned to his house at 6.00 p.m. in the evening when his wife apprised him that accused had abused them during day time is also false. Therefore, he has withheld material information from the Court. He, as such, is a liar, therefore, his testimony that he was away to Paonta Sahib on that day and returned to his house at 6.00 p.m. in the evening when his wife apprised him that accused had abused them during day time is also false. The concealment of material facts by him as such has rendered the entire prosecution case highly doubtful. When as per the version of PW-3 Sohan Singh corroborated by PW-4 Kumari Shalu, Khazan Singh and Bhav Singh (PW-7) were also accompanying PW-3 at the relevant time, whereas, as per that of the complainant, only PW-3 Sohan Singh had come there, therefore, two possible views have emerge on record and as per the cardinal principles in the criminal justice administration, in such a situation, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The Apex Court in K. Prakashan V. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 has held as under:- “22. It is now trite that if two views are possible, the appellate court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible to be taken. The appellate court’s jurisdiction to interfere is limited. [See M.S. Narayana Menon (supra) and Mahadeo Laxman Sarane & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra.) The High Court furthermore has not met the reasons of the learned Trial Judge. It proceeded on the premise that the appellant had not been able to discharge his burden of proof in terms of Section 139 of the Act without posing unto itself a further question as to how the said burden of proof can be discharged. It furthermore did not take into consideration the legal principle that the standard of proof upon a prosecution and upon an accused is different.” 18. Similar is the law laid down by the Apex Court in T. Subramanian V. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , which also reads as follows: “17. The evidence throws out a clear alternative that the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of PWs.1, 2 and 6. If two views were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification. The evidence throws out a clear alternative that the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of PWs.1, 2 and 6. If two views were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the trial court was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was not proved and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same.” 19. Interestingly enough, the defence version as emerges from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that during day time hot exchanges had taken place between him and accused and that he called his nephews Sohan Singh (PW-3), Bhav Singh (PW-7) and Khazan Singh in the evening and attacked them, seems to be nearer to the factual position. Complainant PW-1 was inimical to the accused party on account of some land dispute. Though the suggestions to this effect given to him during his cross-examination has been denied being wrong, however, PW-3 Sohan Singh has categorically stated that the accused party was inimical to his uncle Hira Singh on account of land dispute and that it is for this reason, he was assaulted by them. It has come in his cross-examination that he is a Contractor and was awarded the work of construction of ‘Kuhal’ (water channel). The suggestions put to him in his further cross-examination reveal that the construction work of the water channel executed by him was found to be of inferior quality and the people of press (correspondent of Amar Ujala) had visited the village on that day. Though, he denied such suggestions to be wrong, however, to our mind the inferior quality of work he executed seems to be the cause of quarrel between him and the accused party as otherwise, there was no occasion to the accused to have assaulted either him (complainant) or his nephew Sohan Singh (PW-3) without any rhyme and reason. Enmity on account of land dispute between them may be there, however, the enmity is a double edged weapon, hence why it should not be believed that the assailants were the members of the complainant party. Enmity on account of land dispute between them may be there, however, the enmity is a double edged weapon, hence why it should not be believed that the assailants were the members of the complainant party. The true genesis of the occurrence has, therefore, been withheld from the Court by the prosecution perhaps to book the accused persons falsely in this case at the behest of PW-1 Hira Singh. 20. The aggressor as noticed hereinabove was the complainant party. Admittedly, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had received injuries on their person in this very occurrence. Their MLCs are Ext. D-A to Ext. D-C. The injuries on their person, of course, are simple in nature. The prosecution has miserably failed to show as to how such injuries on their person were received by the complainant party. Not only this but the complainant party has settled the matter with the accused party vide compromise Ext. DW-2/A. In such a situation and when it is FIR No. 90/07, registered against the complainant party at the instance of accused No. 4 was prior in time as well as injuries on their person remained unexplained, no case is made out against them nor one of them i.e. accused Jasmant Singh. Hence, he could not have been convicted under Sections 341 and 307 IPC. Similar view of the matter was taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. V. Prafulla Kumar and others, 1995 (2) Crimes 217 (MP). It is not PW-3 Sohan Singh alone was going to his native place, however, it is the complainant accompanied by Sohan Singh, Khazan Singh and Bhav Singh attacked the accused party may be to take revenge of the hot exchanges which were taken place during day time between the complainant and the accused persons. Therefore, the story has been engineered and fabricated simply to implicate the accused persons falsely in this case. 21. The injuries on the person of PW-3 Sohan Singh though in the opinion of PW-11 Dr. Inder Jeet Singh was dangerous to life on account of excessive bleeding and shock, however, we fail to understand as to why PW-3 was taken to private clinic of PW-11 and not in the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, where PW-1 and PW-7 were also taken for treatment. PW-11 is a private practitioner, therefore, the credibility of the opinion he given is doubtful. PW-11 is a private practitioner, therefore, the credibility of the opinion he given is doubtful. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Sohan Singh had received the injuries grievous in nature and being dangerous to life would have caused his death. If the opinion of the Medical Officer PW-11 is excluded from the prosecution evidence, the injuries on the person of PW-1 Hira Singh, PW-3 Sohan Singh and PW-7 Bhav Singh were also simple in nature and must have been suffered by them when the accused persons retaliated in their defence. 22. Surprisingly enough, the incident had taken place in village Dandiwala, however, no-one was associated from the village as witness, who could have given the eye witness count of the occurrence, particularly when as per prosecution evidence itself, the villagers had gathered on the spot. This also belies the prosecution story. We can take support in this regard from the judgment of the Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. V. Thora Seshu, 2001(3) Crimes 423 (SC). 23. The injured witnesses i.e. complainant, PW-3 Sohan Singh and PW-7 Bhav Singh, no doubt, have deposed about the manner in which they received injuries on their person, however, it is difficult to believe that Gandasi and danda blows were inflicted on the head of PW-1 by accused Sita Ram because according to PW-3 Sohan Singh, PW-1 was assaulted with Gandasi on his head by accused Jagat Singh. Similar is the version of Kumari Shalu (PW-4) as according to her Gandasi blow was caused on the head of her father (PW-1) by accused Jagat Singh. As per their testimony, blow with Kulhari, Ext. P-8 was inflicted on the head of PW-3 Sohan Singh by accused Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh and blood started oozing out of the injuries so inflicted. However, the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ext. PW-12/B reveals that the blood was not detected on Ext. P-8. Therefore, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of injured witnesses PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7. The recovery of axe and sticks allegedly at the instance of the accused is also not legally proved, hence of no help to the prosecution case. 24. PW-12/B reveals that the blood was not detected on Ext. P-8. Therefore, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of injured witnesses PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7. The recovery of axe and sticks allegedly at the instance of the accused is also not legally proved, hence of no help to the prosecution case. 24. In view of the above as well as examining the prosecution case from any angle, the only inescapable conclusion would be that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as claimed by the prosecution and rather the true genesis of the occurrence has been withheld from the Court. With such type of material available on record, no findings of conviction could have been recorded in this case. Therefore, the findings of conviction of accused Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 307 IPC are not supported by the evidence available on record. As a matter of fact, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring guilt home to the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the sentence imposed upon him is also legally unsustainable. As a matter of fact, like his co-accused Sita Ram, Shobha Ram and Jagat Singh, he was also entitled to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him. 25. The up-shot of the entire discussion hereinabove would be that the findings of conviction and sentence under Section 341 and 307 IPC recorded against appellant-convict Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh are neither legally nor factually sustainable, hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. The findings of his acquittal under Section 324, 323 and 506 IPC, whereas, under Sections 341, 307, 324, 323, 506 IPC qua the acquittal of his co-accused Sita Ram, Shobha Ram and Jagat Singh are also legally and factually sustainable, hence calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, this appeal succeeds and the same deserves to be allowed, whereas, the connected appeal filed by the appellant-State deserves dismissal. 26. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. Consequently, the appellant-convict Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 341 and 307 IPC. Consequently, the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against him are quashed and set aside. The connected appeal, however, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 26. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. Consequently, the appellant-convict Jasmant Singh @ Jaswant Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 341 and 307 IPC. Consequently, the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against him are quashed and set aside. The connected appeal, however, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds executed by each of the accused are cancelled and sureties discharged. 27. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.