report, the deceased has received only a lacerated wound of size of 1.5 cm x 0.1/2 x 01 cm at right parietal region 3cm from mid line, which is simple in nature. It is also contended that as per opinion given by the doctor, deceased died due to huge internal hemorrhage. It is further contended that Sunil (PW-3), who was the Tractor Driver, has stated in his examination-in-chief that son of the complainant informed him that his mother’s condition is not good, on which, he took his tractor and via Kherthal went to Kishangarhbas and then to Kotkasim. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that in village, he was informed that the deceased was carrying sarso sticks and she fell from the boundary wall and due to injury, she was writhing. It is argued that there is no re-examination on this point, which goes to show that deceased had fallen from the boundary wall, as a result of which, she was having internal hemorrhage and the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused respondent. 5. We have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record. 6. Initially, in the FIR, allegation against the accused respondent was of causing injury with an axe on the head of the injured, however, deceased has not received any sharp injury on the head and there is only a small laceration on the head. The complainant side i.e. Subash (PW-1) and his son Surjeet Singh (PW-2), have changed their version and have later stated that the deceased was hit by the handle of the axe. As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained only one simple injury on the head and the cause of death was rapture of the spleen, however, there is no evidence that the accused respondent has caused any injury
