Having heard the learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant-State and perused the record, we are of the opinion that no case for interference in the acquittal of the respondent by this Court is made out. As regards the incident relating to death of Bapusingh, the Merg Intimation Ex. P-33 and Naksha Ex. P-2 hardly indicate that the same has taken place at the house of Sodansingh (PW 1). Indeed, the intimation clearly mentions that Bepusingh had tried to interVene and was hit by Chhatarsingh and others as a result of which he fell down unconscious. Sodansingh (PWl) has also deposed on oath that Bapusingh was present at the place where he was assaulted (Para 3). He has further stated that Bapusing was also taken by him to the police station on a bullock-cart and died in front of the school in village Kehlari. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the prosecution casein relation to deceased Bapusingh is that he was assaulted by the respondents at the time when the respondents were assaulting Sodansingh (PW 1) and fell unconscious on the spot. Evidence of Rajendra Singh (PW 4) when considered in'the aforesaid context, makes him wholly unreliable. According to him, the incident had taken place near the school and only five respondents viz. Chhatarsingh, Kanksingh, Anoopsingh, Kamalsingh and Kiresingh had participated in the same. He does not mention the presence of 18 respondents at that place, which fact introduces a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and makes the evidence of Sodansingh (PW 1) inconsistent. Then, evidence of Rajendra Singh is that, Chhataisingh caused injuries by 'using a sword and Anoopsingh, by using a Pharsa. No incised wound which would normally be caused by these weapons has, however, been found on the person of the deceased, as would be clear from the evidence of Dr. S. K. Singh (PW 11) and the post-mortem report Ex, P-16. Similarly, Rajendra Singh (PW 4) has stated that Kiresingh and Kanksingh shot arrows from their bows and caused injuries on the person of Bapusingh. No such injuries has been found in the post-mortem examination, Apparently, therefore, evidence of Rajendra Singh does not find support from the medical evidence of Dr. Singh (PW 11) and justifies rejection of his evidence. Added is the fact that Rajendra Singh (PW 4) is said to have rushed to Parasram and informed about the incident. He, however, does not say that he informed the names of five respondents to Parasram Parasram rushed to the spot and saw some persons running away from the place of the incident but did not recognize any of the respondents. Apparently, therefore, the evidence of Rajendra Singh who is a child witness, is not of the quality which may satisfy the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, the acquittal of the respondents in so far as the death of Bapusingh is concerned, must be held to the legal and valid, needing no interference by this Court.

As regards injuries on Sodansingh (PW 1) and Chhogalal (PW 2), their evidence is contradicted by medical evidence furnished by Dr. Vinod Kumar Lohia. Only one lacerated wound and two swellings were found on the person of Sodansingh. Sodansingh has, however, deposed on bath that the respondent, Chhatarsingh had int1icted one assault on his head by using sword. There is, however, no such wound on his head caused by a sword. Similarly, he has also deposed that Sajansingh and Kamalsingh had given him lathi blow. No contusion has been found on his person. Anoopsingh is said to have hit on his waist by a stone. There is no such injury. Apparently, therefore, the version of Sodansingh (PW 1) is contradicted by medical evidence of Dr. Lahia and introduced infirmity, justifying rejection of his evidence. As regards Chhogalal, he claims to have received injuries of stone, lathi and sword. According to him, when Chhatarsingh aimed sword at him, he caught hold of the same with his right hand. The type of injuries found on his person