right side and the first tracheal ring was cut partially and terminated at the level of tracheal ring. As per Ext.P4 recovery mahazar, the blade portion of MO1 is of having 19 cm. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel, that such slash wound cannot be as a result of using MO1, cannot be discarded. Certain other injuries also, which I indicated earlier, having the same nature, would also suggest that the weapon, other than MO1, was also used for inflicting injury. The above position is further clear from the deposition of PW7. He stated in the cross examination that injury No.14 cannot be caused with MO1 like weapon. If that be so, the question is, who inflicted injury No.14 and what was the weapon used for inflicting such injury. To satisfy the above question, there is no answer from the side of the prosecution. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to how the deceased received injury No.14. So even as per the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, the penal liability cannot be fastened against the accused alone. Therefore, the resultant conclusion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased sustained injuries exclusively from the accused
