L.S. MEHTA, J.— There is village Jagtewala, Chak No.27 H. in Tehsil Karan-pur, District Ganganagar. In this village the accused Sardara Singh, Kelasingh, Jaila Singh and Palsingh possessed certain Murrabas of land. Lalsingh and his son Jagtar Singh deceased also owned certain Murrabas there. All the accused were the real brothers of Lal Singh deceased. Their lands were, however,, partitioned a few years back. Some litigation had been going on between Sardara Singh. Kela Singh, Jaila Singh and Pal Singh on the one hand and Lal Singh on the other, about water. On June 17, 1964, at 1 i a.m., when Mst. Punjab Kaur, wife of deceased Lal Singh, was coming with her son, Mukhtiar Singh, from her fields, Sardara Singh gave her a lathi blow on her leg at a distance of about 8 furlongs from the village Jagtewala, Mst. Punjab Kaur made a report of this happening (Ex.P.19) at the Police Station, Keshrisinghpura, that very day at 7.30 a.m. Next day, i. e., on June 18-1964, Lal Singh had to take water from the canal for irrigating his land. He, accompanied by his sons, Jagtar Singh, aged 17 years, and Mukhtiar Singh had aged 14 years, went to his fit Id early in the morning i.e., an hour before sunrise Sardara Singh already diverted water to his own land 5 minutes prior to the arrival of Lal Singh on his field Lal Singh objected to it. Thereupon Sardara Singh and Jaila Singh beat him with Kassis. Kela Singh and Pal Singh also inflicted injuries to Jagtar Singh with Kassis. Sardara Singh gave one Kassi blow with its handle to Mukhtiar Singh. In the meantime Mst. Punjab Kaur reached there. It is said that she brought tea from her house for her husband. She is alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. As soon as Mst. Punjab Kaur reached the place, she raised hue and cry as a result of which Kela Singh and Pal Singh ran away across the railway line and Jaila Singh and Sardara Singh took to their heels towards the village Jagtewala. Injured Lal Singh had already been thrown into a Khala (water channel) by the accused. His body was taken out of the Khala by Mst. Punjab Kaur, Mukhtiar Singh and others. Jagtar Singh was lying outside the Khala. Injured Lal Singh had already been thrown into a Khala (water channel) by the accused. His body was taken out of the Khala by Mst. Punjab Kaur, Mukhtiar Singh and others. Jagtar Singh was lying outside the Khala. Mukhtiar Singh then went to Dalpatsinghpura to inform the Patwari of the village, but he was not available there. Mukhtiar Singh apprised Mehar Singh, a resident of Dalpatsinghpura, D. W. 1, of the happening,. Soon after Mehar Singh rushed up to the spot. Mukhtiar Singh brought a cart from his house. The dead bodies of Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh were loaded on the cart and then they were taken to their house in the village Jagtewala. Mst Punjab Kaur went to the Police Station, Keshrisinghpura, to lodge a report. Arjun Singh accompanied her upto the Police Station. The Station House Officer, Shankerlal, P. W. 5, recorded the first information report Ex. P. 1 on June 18, 1964, at 11.15, a.m. Later on the S.H.O., Shankerlal went to the spot. He prepared the inquest report Ex P. 3, seizure memos of the blood stained clothes of Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh. Exs. P. 5 and P. 6 respectively. He collected sand, stained with blood, from the spot under memo Ex. P. 7. He also prepared the site plan Ex. P. 8. Blood stained shirt Ex. 1 and Gamcha Ex. 2 were recovered from the possession of Sardara Singh under the memo Ex. P. 9, on June 18, 1954. These clothes were duly sealed. They were sent to the Chemical Examiner Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Chemical Examiner (vide Ex. P. 26) reported that these clothes were positive for blood. Cuttings of the articles were then sent to the Serologist and the Chemical Examiner to the Government of India, Calcutta, who reported that they were stained with human blood vide Ex. P. 27. The dead bodies of Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh were sent for post-mortem examination to the Medical Officer, I/C. Government Dispensary, Gulabewala. Dr. G. S. Grewal, P. W. 2 conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Lal Singh. He found the following injuries . (1) Incised wound 2-1/2"x1/2"x cavity deep tapering at the edge on the left forehead. Its anterior end was at the inner end of the left eye-brow. (2) Incised wounds 4"x1/2"x cavity deep on the left side of the scalp parietal region. He found the following injuries . (1) Incised wound 2-1/2"x1/2"x cavity deep tapering at the edge on the left forehead. Its anterior end was at the inner end of the left eye-brow. (2) Incised wounds 4"x1/2"x cavity deep on the left side of the scalp parietal region. Its anterior end was reaching the frontal region and posterior end was reaching the middle line. (3) Incised wound 3"x 1/2"x cavity deep on the top of the skull left side 2-1/2" from the middle line and parallel to it. (4) Incised wound l"xl/8" on the left cheek bone. (5) Incised wound l-1/2"x1/2"x bone deep on the dorsum of the left wrist ulnar side below the medial epicondyle. It was transverse. (6) Incised wound "1/2x 1/2"x 1/8" transverse 1" in front of the left car. According to the Doctor, cause of death of Lal Singh was severe injuries inflicted on the vital organ of the brain, which was damaged badly. 2. He also performed the autopsy of the dead body of Jagtar Singh. He noticed the following injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound l-1/2"x 1/2" cavity deep on the left side of occipital region. (2) Incised wound 2-1/2"x 1/2"x cavity deep on the right Parietal bone, its inner end was reaching the middle line. (3) Incised wound 3"x1/2"x cavity deep on the right parietal bone paralled to the middle line. (4) Incised wound l"x1/2"x cavity deep on the right parietal bone just below the parietal eminence. According to the Doctor cause of death of Jagtar Singh was severe injuries to the brain, which was damaged very badly. 3. After necessary investigation, the Police put up a challan in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, District Ganganagar. The said Magistrate made requisite inquiry and committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, for trial. All the 4 accused, namely, Sardara Singh Kaila Singh, Jaila Singh and Pal Singh were charged under sec. 302. I.P.C., on February 15, 1963, to which they pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 6 witnesses, namely, Kartar Singh (Motbir) PW. 1; Mst Punjab Kaur (eye witness PW. 2; Dr. G.S. Grewal; P. W. 3; Mukhtiar Singh eye witness P. W. 4, S.H.O., Shankerlal P.W. 5; and Patwari Sohanlal, P.W.6 In his statement recorded under sec. In support of its case the prosecution examined 6 witnesses, namely, Kartar Singh (Motbir) PW. 1; Mst Punjab Kaur (eye witness PW. 2; Dr. G.S. Grewal; P. W. 3; Mukhtiar Singh eye witness P. W. 4, S.H.O., Shankerlal P.W. 5; and Patwari Sohanlal, P.W.6 In his statement recorded under sec. 342, Cr.P.C., Sardara Singh said that he had diverted water to his field at 5.30 a m , on the date of the occurrence. He arrived there 15 minutes before the scheduled time. He had found Jagtar Singh and Lal Singh dead. Thereupon, he went to Mst. Punjab Kaur and Mukhtiar "Singh and informed them of the happening. Later he went to the Police Station, Kesarsingh-pura, and lodged report Ex P. 19 that every day. The rest of the accused pleaded alibi. In their defence, the accused examined D. W. 1 Mehar Singh and D. W. 2 Mukha Singh. The trial court held that the two eye witnesses. Mst. Punjab Kaur P.W. 2, and her son Mukhtiar Singh, PW. 4, reached the spot after the occurrence and were not present there at the time of the actual commission of the crime and therefore, their testimony could not be said to be reliable in so far as complicity of the accused is concerned. The trial court further held that mere production of Sardara Singhs blood stained shirt Ex. 1 and Gamcha Ex. 2 was not sufficient to link him with the crime. There being no other evidence, the court below acquitted all the 4 accused for offence under sec. 302, I. P. G. 4. Aggrieved against the above judgment, the State Government has filed the present appeal. Before the case was put up for hearing, Jaila Singh died. It was, therefore, ordered that the appeal against the accused Jaila Singh stood abated. We_ are now concerned only with the appeal filed against" Sardara Singh, Kela Singh and Pal Singh. 5. Contention of learned Deputy Government Advocate is that the trial court went wrong in not relying upon the eye witnesses account, furnished by Mst. Punjab Kaur, P.W. 2, and Mukhtiar Singh, PW.4. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that the recovery of blood stained shirt Ex. 1 and Gamcha Ex. 2 from the possession of Sardara Singh established an important link, connecting him with the alleged crime. Punjab Kaur, P.W. 2, and Mukhtiar Singh, PW.4. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that the recovery of blood stained shirt Ex. 1 and Gamcha Ex. 2 from the possession of Sardara Singh established an important link, connecting him with the alleged crime. Learned Deputy Government Advocate also urged that the statements of the eye witnesses Mst. Punjab Kaur, PW. 2, and Mukhtiar Singh PW. 4, get support from the post mortem report of Lal Singh, Ex. P. 17, and that of Jagtar Singh, Ex. P. 18 proved by Dr. G.S. Grewal, PW.3, as also from the first information report Ex. P. 1 lodged by PW. 2 soon-after the occurrence and that evidence ought to have been held enough for the conviction of the accused. 6. There is no dispute that Lal Singh and his son Jagtar Singh were murdered on June 18, 1964. Now we have to see whether the charge of murdering the two persons has been fully brought home to the accused respondents. In this case, P. W. 2, Mst. Punjab Kaur, wife of the deceased Lal Singh, and P. W. 4 Mukhtiar Singh, son of Lal Singh, are the most important eye witnesses, examined by the prosecution. We have to examine their statements and find out whether these two witnesses were actually present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. Mst. Punjab Kaur has stated in her examination in-chief that she saw the four accused persons, armed with Kassis on the side. They were inflicting injuries to Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh. As soon as she arrived at the scene and was away only at a distance of about 15 Paundas, all of them ran away. Mst. Punjab Kaur stated before the trial court that Mukhtiar Singh, P.W. 4, had gone to the field with Lal Singh deceased and Jagtar Singh, in the first information report Ex. 1 she had said that, both Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh went together and that later on she too reached there Her minor son Mukhtiar Singh also reached there. In that report she had not clearly stated that Mukhtiar Singh also accompanied Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh while going to the field. In the trial court she further said that when she arrived at the Police Station after the occurrence, Sardara was not present there. He came after she had actually reached the Police Station. In that report she had not clearly stated that Mukhtiar Singh also accompanied Lal Singh and Jagtar Singh while going to the field. In the trial court she further said that when she arrived at the Police Station after the occurrence, Sardara was not present there. He came after she had actually reached the Police Station. In her statement before the Committing Court Ex. D. 2 she had unequivocally said that when she arrived at the Police Station, Sardara Singh had already reached there. Again, in the examination-in-chicf Mst. Punjab Kaur stated that when she came to the Police Station, she apprised the Head Constable of the entire happening and in the meantime the Station House Officer also appeared. In her statement recorded in the Committing Court Ex, D. 2 she deposed that she related the whole story to the Head Constable. In her cross-examination she said before the trial court that when Lalsingh was lying on the ground in the water course, Sardara Singh and Jaila Singh were causing injuries to him. Sardara Singh gave two Kassi blows to Lalsingh and Jaila Singh also gave two Kassi blows to him. It is not understood why and how the accused inflicted Kassi blows when Lal Singh had already fallen down dead into the water channel. In the examination-in-chief before the trial court she stated that Lalsingh was pulled down in the water course but in the cross-examination she denied this fact. In the course of trial in examination-in-chief she said that all the four accused beat Lalsingh and Jagtar Singh, but in cross-examination she averred that Sardara Singh and Jaila Singh did not cause any injury to Jagtar Singh. So also Kela Singh and Palsingh did not inflict any injury to Lalsingh. Again, she said before the trial court that she mentioned the names of the four accused to Mukhasingh, This is not supported by the defence witness Mukhasingh, D. W. 2. Mukhasingh, a member of the Panchayat, stated that she did not mention the names of the murderers to him, though he stayed with her for about an hour after the happening. The witness further says that Mukhtiar Singh also did not name the murderers. It has not been made clear in the early hours of the morning that day. Mukhasingh, a member of the Panchayat, stated that she did not mention the names of the murderers to him, though he stayed with her for about an hour after the happening. The witness further says that Mukhtiar Singh also did not name the murderers. It has not been made clear in the early hours of the morning that day. If tea-pots or other utensils would have been recovered, that would have perhaps lent support to the story of tea related by her, but no such recovery has been affected. Mst. Punjab Kaur admits in her statement that she was not on visiting terms with the accused for about 8 years and that disputes had been going on between them. From these facts and the circumstances it cannot be said that the finding of the trial court in the matter of credibility of this witness is perverse or wrong. 7. Mukhtiar Singh, P. W. 4, has emphatically said that Sardara Singh inflicted a blow on his head with the handle of a Kassi. This fact is not mentioned in the first information report, nor is it corroborated by any medical evidence. The witness says that he saw the occurrence from a distance of 10 paundas. This version appears to be unnatural. If he was available at a distance of about 10 Paundas, there is no reason why the accused should have spared him, when his own elder brother Jagtar Singh was done to death. The witness again says that he saw Mehar Singh, D.W. 1, a resident of Dalpatsinghpura soon after the occurrence and named the accused, Mehar Singh, DW. 1, on the other hand, states that Mukhtiar Singh did not name any of the assailants. Mukhtiar Singh stated before the trial court that Jaila Singh caught hold of the head hair of his father while Sardara Singh gave Kassi blows to him. This statement is not corroborated by Mst. Punjab Kaur, P.W. 2. Again, the witness has stated in the trial court that quite a large number of blows were inflicted by the accused to the victims. This portion of his statement is not corroborated by medical evidence. The medical evidence shows that only six injuries were caused to Lal Singh and five injuries were inflicted to Jagtar Singh. Punjab Kaur, P.W. 2. Again, the witness has stated in the trial court that quite a large number of blows were inflicted by the accused to the victims. This portion of his statement is not corroborated by medical evidence. The medical evidence shows that only six injuries were caused to Lal Singh and five injuries were inflicted to Jagtar Singh. It is also unnatural how in the early hours of the morning a lad of about 14 years of age happened to arrive at the place of the occurrence. It is thus apparent that the finding of learned trial Judge in the matter of credibility of the testimony of Mukhtiar Singh cannot be said to be erroneous. 8. Here we may also point out that contradictory statements at various stages of the case not only affect reliability, but also creates serious difficulties for the court to arrive at the truth. If the contradictory statements are not explained in a reasonable manner and have been made deliberately and motivated by improper and ulterior consideration, they run the risk of being completely ignored. In the instant case we do not find any reasonable explanation for the varying and inconsistent versions given by the two eye witnesses as mentioned above. Their mere denial that they did not make such statements is not enough. Thus, considering the contradictory statements of the two eye witnesses, we do not feel safe in arriving at the conclusion that the two witnesses did actually see the happening. In our opinion, the trial court was perfectly justified in brushing aside the testimony of the two witnesses, who apparently were not truthful, besides being inimi-cally disposed towards the accused. It is, no doubt, a matter of regret that foul cold-blooded and cruel murders of two persons have taken place. There may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused persons. Considering as a whole, the prosecution story may be true, but unless there is a definite, positive, legal, unimpeachable and reliable evidence, the accused, in a serious case like this, cannot be convicted. In a criminal case, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 9. There is another very strong reason why the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses should not be considered as unimpeachable. In a criminal case, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 9. There is another very strong reason why the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses should not be considered as unimpeachable. Both the eye witnesses have admitted that their statements were recorded not only by the Investigating Officer but by a senior police officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the course of cross-examination learned counsel for the accused prayed that copies of such statements be supplied to him, but that was not done. The provisions relating to recording of statement of witnesses and supplying of the copies provide a valuable safe-guard to the accused, so that they may be utilised at the trial for preparing effective defence. Such a request cannot be normally whittled down. Where the circumstances are such that the court may reasonably infer that prejudice has resulted to the accused from the failure of supplying of the copies of the statements recorded under sec. 161, Cr.P.C., the court is justified in directing that the conviction should be set aside. In this connection a reference is made to Noor Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (1). The object of secs. 162, 173(4) and 207 A(3), Cr.P.C. , is to enable the accused to obtain a clear picture of the case against him. The sections impose an obligation upon the prosecution agency to supply copies of the statements of witnesses who are intended to be examined at the trial to enable the accused to utilise them in the course of cross-examination to establish such defence as may be desired to put up and also to shake the testimony of the witnesses. The object, in other words, is to give to the accused fullest information in possession of the prosecution on which its case is based. In the instant case, keeping in view the nature of the testimony of the two material witnesses, we feel that refusal to supply copies of their statements, recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has naturally caused prejudice to the accused. 10. Two blood stained clothes, shirt Ex. 1 and Gamcha Ex. 2, were recovered from the possession of the accused Sardara Singh under the memo Ex. P. 9. According to the Chemical Examiners report they were positive for blood vide Ex. P. 26. The Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India has also reported (Ex. 10. Two blood stained clothes, shirt Ex. 1 and Gamcha Ex. 2, were recovered from the possession of the accused Sardara Singh under the memo Ex. P. 9. According to the Chemical Examiners report they were positive for blood vide Ex. P. 26. The Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India has also reported (Ex. P27) that these clothes were stained with human blood. The clothes were seized by the Police on June 18, 1964. The articles were received by the Chemical Examiner through Meghram, Constable No. 997. Police Station. Keshari-singhpura, with letter No. 7431 dated August 18, 1964, on October 12, 1964, that is about 4 months after the occurrence. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming why such an inordinate delay was caused in despatching the articles to the Chemical Examiner. It has also not been explained that when the forwarding letter for sending the articles had been prepared on August 18, 1964, why it was not actually sent upto October 11, 1964. We have already examined the material evidence produced by the prosecution and have come to the same conclusion as the trial court as regards the credibility of the eye witnesses. We have already held that the contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the two witnesses are so glaring and so significant that it is almost impossible to believe that the two witnesses saw anything of importance. The only point that remains to be considered is as to whether the evidence of recovery of the blood stained articles is enough by itself to justify the conviction of the accused. We do not think it is. The recovery of the blood stained articles can be used to corroborate other evidence. It cannot by itself prove the case of the prosecution. It is possible to imagine on many an occasion whether the mere discovery of a blood stained article is due to something other than murder, for instance, concealing the dead body or receiving from the real murderer a blood stained article and so on. It is therefore, impossible to say that mere discovery of a blood stained article is enough by itself to justify a conviction for murder. 11. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist were not read to the accused Sardara Singh the course of his examination under sec. It is therefore, impossible to say that mere discovery of a blood stained article is enough by itself to justify a conviction for murder. 11. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist were not read to the accused Sardara Singh the course of his examination under sec. 342, Cr.P.C., and that has caused a serious prejudice to him In this connection, it may be stated that a specific question was put to the accused Sardara Singh in regard to the clothes Exs. 1 and 2, to which his answer was that the clothes, no doubt, belonged to him, but he had nothing to say in regard to the blood stains on them. Where the accused is represented by a counsel at the trial and in an appeal it is upto the accused or his counsel in such cases to satisfy the court that such inadequate examination has. resulted in the miscarriage of justice. If the counsel is unable to say how his client had been prejudiced and if all that he could urge is that there was a possibility of prejudice having been caused to his client, that alone is not enough. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the non-examination or inadequate examination under sec. 342, Cr.P.C. must be presumed to have caused prejudice. The question of prejudice is a matter of inference based on facts and the surrounding circumstances in each case. Learned counsel before us, could not make out a clear prejudice. In this case Sardara Singh knew what the accusation against him was. He also knew that blood stained clothes were produced by the prosecution in the trial court. He offered no explanation in regard to the blood stain marks. There is, therefore, no justification for supposing that there had been any prejudice caused to Sardara Singh on account of improper or insufficient recording of his statement by the Sessions fudge under sec. 342, Cr.P.C. The examination of the accused person under sec. 342, Cr.P.C , is intended to give him opportunity to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under sec. 342, Cr.P.C. The examination of the accused person under sec. 342, Cr.P.C , is intended to give him opportunity to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under sec. 31-2, Cr.P.C., is to infer whether hiving regard to all the questions put to him, he had had an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of the prosecution case against him. Here the accused was given an opportunity to explain how blood stain marks appeared on his clothes and, therefore, omission of the specific question in the examination of the accused under sec. 342, Cr.P.C., in regard to Chemical Examiners report and the Serologists test, to our minds, has not resulted in causing any prejudice to the accused. A reference in this connection may be made to Moseh Kaka Chowdhry vs. State of West Bengal(2). 12. The statements of the two eye-witnesses Mst. Punjab Kaur P. W. 2, and Mukhtiar Singh, P. W. 4, elicit that Arjun Singh arrived at the scene of the occur-rence at the time of or soon-after the crime. So was the case with Sohan Singh and Sukha. Mst. Punjab Kaur has also deposed that she mentioned the names of the accused to Mukha Singh soon after the occurrence. None of these witnesses has been produced by the prosecution. In murder case, the prosecutor is expected to act fairly and honestly and must not withold material witnesses simply for the reason that their evidence is likely to go against him. It is no doubt open to the prosecufor not to examine witnesses who, in his opinion, have not witnessed the incident, but normally he has to examine all the eye witnesses in support of his case. Where, as here, it is disclosed that material witnesses have been deliberately withheld, the court is justified in drawing an inference against the prosecution and may, hold that omission to examine such witnesses constitutes a serious infirmity vide Darya Singh vs. The State of Punjab (3). 13. In an appeal by the State Government under sec. 417, Cr.P.C., against the acquittal, it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the finding of the trial court was not sound. 13. In an appeal by the State Government under sec. 417, Cr.P.C., against the acquittal, it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the finding of the trial court was not sound. If it is found that the trial court adopted a reasonable course and took plausible view of the matter, interference under sec. 417, Cr.P.C. is not justifiable. The reason is manifest. There are two important factors in every criminal case which have to be kept in view in favour of an accused person; one is that the accused can always claim benefit of reasonable doubt and the other is that when an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then, even though his defence is not satisfactorily proved, it ought nor-mally be accepted unless circumstances warrant that it is false. On a careful examination of the evidence and the circumstances of this case we are not satisfied that there exist strong and compelling reasons to set aside the finding of acquittal. 14. In the result, this appeal, having no force, stands dismissed. The accused are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds.