grievousness of injury. The MLC report did not contain the identification marks of injured, which is also doubtful on the part of prosecution.Moreover,hedidnotdisclosethatthesaidinjurywas sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature, therefore, prima facie, case under Section 307 of the IPC is not sustainabte in the eye of law. He further submits that according to the prosecution, the child witness Rajesh Kumar (PW/11) is one of the material witnesses, but during the trial, Rajesh Kumar was unable to identify the injured Kumari Madhu. MoFeover, the statement recorded regarding the place of incident as narrated by Rajesh and Madhu is contrary, which creates doubt over the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submits that the statement of Madhu recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and the'statement given in the court are not matching. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has already made observation in para 16 of the judgment that the Doctor did not give any opinion regarding nature of injury which might be caused death of any persori in ordinary course of nature. His next contention is that the trial Court failed to see the statement of material witness Smt. Shraddha Soni, where Madhu used to go for tuition but, on the date of incident she did not teech as she was out of station. The weapon in question was seized from open place in the memorandum, it was not according to law, the'refore, on this basis, the accused could not be convicted. Accordihg to the prosecution, near the place of incident, there is number of shops and houses of neighbours but none of them was cited as prosecution witness. The trial Court further failed to consider the requirehnent of standard of evidence to convict any accused person and bnly on the basis of presumption laid down in its owh view cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that sirice the age of the accused/appellant, at the time of incident, was 19
