context of the nature of assault by sabal allegedly inflicted by the accused / appellant. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has specifically stated that such injuries were possible due to fall on hard substance on land. During the examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr. PC, he has taken specific plea that the deceased was drunk and died due to fall on the ground. Injuries are such which can be caused by fall on hard substance, as opined by the doctor also. PW-3, wife of the deceased, who is the hearsay witness, as per her own statement, has not seen the assault. Other witnesses namely PWs-1, 2 and 7 were also hearsay witnesses who have allegedly reached the place of occurrence after hearing hulla. As per the description of the place of occurrence, there were houses of other villagers close to it, but none of the villagers have seen the occurrence by their own eyes and come forward to depose as such. The informant also in his deposition has stated that he never used to follow his father during walk except on that date. He has also stated that in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, there were houses of the villagers like Jatan Pradhan and Dhuna Pradhan, etc., but they have not seen the occurrence, nor have come forward to support the prosecution story. The motive suggested by the informant is of more than 2-3 months back prior to the date of occurrenceand there is no reporting of such incidence before the police as per the statement of the informant himself. This is a concoction in order to support the prosecution story. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously proceeded to hold the accused guilty of the charges, though prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
