JUDGMENT 1. The appellants, 6 in number, have been convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, vide two separate orders passed on July 17, 1976, as under:-I-Ramjilal and II-Niroti (i) Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- each, under section 502 I.P.C. or alternatively under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they are to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 148 I.P.C. III-Keshav Das IV-Bhagwan Das V-Balram and VI-Badna (i) Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they are to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 147 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in their conviction and sentence as aforementioned may be briefly stated here. All the six accused named above, Sanwal Das deceased, and the alleged eye-witnesses in the case, belong to village Badri which is a very small village consisting of 16 or 17 families. Those families were divided into two factions, one headed by Ramjilal accused, and the other by Sanwal Das deceased. It appears the members of the two factions had launched some civil and criminal cases against each other prior to the present occurrence. On August 8, 1974 Keshav Das accused filed a complaint (sec. Ex. D.6) before the Magistrate concerned under section 379, 427, 352 and 147 I.P.C. against Sanwal Das deceased and his supporters, including four out of the five alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Devla, Mulchand, Parmoli and Suraj Mal. On September 7, 1974, Ram Dayal a member of the faction of the deceased lodged a report with the police that the selfsame set of six persons who are accused in the present case attacked him and caused hurt to him. This report was found to be false with the result that the accused were released and final police report (sec Ex. D. 33A) was submitted accordingly, to the Magistrate. On October 19, 1974, the accused faction filed a civil suit (sec. Ex. D.8) against Ram Dayal, Surajmal, Mulchand, Devla and Udai Ram of the the complainant faction. This report was found to be false with the result that the accused were released and final police report (sec Ex. D. 33A) was submitted accordingly, to the Magistrate. On October 19, 1974, the accused faction filed a civil suit (sec. Ex. D.8) against Ram Dayal, Surajmal, Mulchand, Devla and Udai Ram of the the complainant faction. Then, on October 21, 1974, Keshav Das accused, filed a complaint before the Magistrate under section 457 I. P. C. against some members of the complainant faction including Sanwal Das, deceased and Devla P.W. On being sent to the police for investigation, the said complaint was also found to be false as per police record Ex. P29. The present prosecution was launched by the police against the aforementoned six accused n the basis of an F. I. R. registered on a written report (Ex. P. 1) submitted to the Police by Bhajan Singh, PW. 1, on October 30, 1974 at 6 a. m. The said report which is in Hindi may be translated as under. This morning at about 3 A.M. on October 30, 1974, my uncle Sanwal Das, left home on a bicycle and went in the direction of village Guhana in search of the buffallo of Uda Ram. While my uncle was still on his way between villages Badri and Guhana, Ramjilal and Badna sons of Kanhaiya, Keshav Das and Bhagwan Das sons of Sarman Das, Balram and Niroti sons of Bhagwan Das, armed with Ballam, Lathi and Pharsa surrounded him, Ramjilal exhorted his companions to finish off Sanwal Das. The latter raised outcries of bachao, bachao, Hearing his cries, I, Pamoli, Surajmal, Devla and Mulchand rushed to the scene of occurrence from our nearby fields. Within our view, Ramjilal dealt a ballam blow on the neck of Sanwal Das as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Badna, Keshav, Bhagwan Das Balram and Niroti inflicted lathi and pharsa blow to the fallen man. Sanwal Das was lying dead on the spot. I hereby report and pray for necessary action. We have old litigation with the accused regarding land pathway. Signatures of Bhajan Singh 31-10-1974. 3. All the five persons mentioned as eye-witnesses of the occurrence in the above written report came on the stand as witnesses for the prosecution and supported the prosecution case. I hereby report and pray for necessary action. We have old litigation with the accused regarding land pathway. Signatures of Bhajan Singh 31-10-1974. 3. All the five persons mentioned as eye-witnesses of the occurrence in the above written report came on the stand as witnesses for the prosecution and supported the prosecution case. Relying on their testimony, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced all the six accused. As already stated, they have appealed. 4. After hearing both sides and giving the matter our careful consideration, we are of opinion that none of these witnesses is reliable and therefore it would not be safe to record conviction against as many as six persons on such a serious charge as of murder on the basis of such unreliable evidence. We may now proceed to discuss their evidence one by one. 5. P.W. 1 Bhajan Singh who is nephew of Sanwal Das deceased gave one version in the F. I. R. and a different one in the trial. In the F.I.R. he told the police that he had reached the scene of occurrence from his field on hearing the cries of bachao raised by the deceased. In the trial, he would have us believe that he accompanied the deceased right from their house in village Badri that morning, and that like the deceased he too was riding a bicycle and going on his way to Guhana. When confronted with this glaring contradiction in the two versions given by him, all that he could say was that the version to the contrary given in his written report, Ex. P/1 to the police is incorrect. It may be mentioned here that Bhajan Singh is a school teacher who admitted that the written report Ex. P/1 was made by him under his own signatures to the police. Had he accompanied the deceased from village Badri that morning had he been riding a bicycle only 10 or 15 paces behind the deceaseds bicycle at the time the deceased was ambushed and assaulted on his way from Badri to Guhana he would have certainly mentioned these facts in his written report to the police. What he instead told the police was that he reached the scene of occurrence, like other PWs. from his field nearby. His evidence is thus self contradictory. The contradiction knocks the bottom out of his evidence. 6. What he instead told the police was that he reached the scene of occurrence, like other PWs. from his field nearby. His evidence is thus self contradictory. The contradiction knocks the bottom out of his evidence. 6. A little reflection on his version in the trial would reveal that it is obviously a concocted and false version. He stated that on October 29, 1974, at about 7 or 8 p. m. Sanwal Das deceased and Ude Ram were present in their room and that he too was with them at that time. He stated that, during conversation in the room, Ude Ram requested Sanwal Das deceased to go to Guhana and make inquiries about Ude Ram's stolen buffalo and that Sanwal Das agreed saying that he would be leaving early next morning and see if he could find a clue of the stolen buffalo. He added in this context that Sanwaldas had also explained the reason why he wanted to leave very early in the morning saying that he would leave early as he wanted to be back early and moreover there was the risk of people from whom he was desirous of making inquirers going out to their fields on work, if he did not reach Guhana early in the morning. After having narrated the so-called conversation between Sanwal Das deceased and Ude Ram in their room, Bhajan Singh PW went on to say that right when the said conversation was going on, accused Ramjilal, Kashav Das, and Badna were sitting, in Ramjilals baithak and smoking hukka there and that the said baithak is situated across the street infront of the room where the conversation in question was going on. On the face of it, the whole thing is no better than a cock and bull story. There is no mention of it in the written report Ex. P/1. The so-called conversation between Sanwaldas deceased and Ude Ram sounds utterly artificial. PW. K. C. Vinsai, the investigating officer deposed that Ude Ram had lodged a report regarding the theft of his buffalo accusing the present appellants of the commission of that offence and that the matter was under investigation. If so, Ude Ram was least likely to request Sanwal Das to go to Guhana to find out the whereabouts of the stolen buffalo. If so, Ude Ram was least likely to request Sanwal Das to go to Guhana to find out the whereabouts of the stolen buffalo. Assuming for a moment that such a request was made, Sanwal Das would have normally signified his willingness to go by simply saying yes instead of rendering the explanation why he would be going early in the morning. The explanation is clearly tendentious in nature, for Bhajan Singh would have us believe that the accused who were sitting in their baithak across the street were over hearing it and that therefore they had gone fully armed later that night to the rasta from Badri to Guhana and laid in ambush there waiting for the arrival that side of Sanwaldas deceased. It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Sanwal Das deceased would be speaking to Ude Ram in the same room so loudly as to be audible to his enemies smoking hukka in their baithak across the street. There was no need for him to explain why he would leave early. And then why should he speak so loudly unless he wanted to challenge his enemies to confront him on his way to Guhana. Obviously, the whole story is a put up affair. 7. We are also not prepared to believe that Bhajan Singh PW accompanied the deceased in the latters journey on his way to Guhana early that morning. Bhajan Singh says that the deceased woke him up that morning asking him to take out the bicycle and open the chain of the door for him. He would have us believe that when he was handing the bicycle to the deceased at the exit of the house, the deceased told him that he was going to Guhana and that thereupon the witness told the deceased that he too would go as he wanted to hire a tractor from Guhana for ploughing his land. The witness further stated that it was under these circumstances that he took out his own bicycle and rode it following the deceased at a distance of 10 or 15 paces behind him throughout the entire distance of one or one and a half furlong upto the place where the accused are said to have waylaid the deceased and killed him. It will be recalled that according to this witness he was present at the time when the deceased told Ude Ram that he would be going to Guhana early next morning. If the witness himself had urgent work at Guhana, he would have told the deceased then and there that he too would accompany him. It is impossible to believe the witness that he took a snap decision early in the morning only after the deceased had got ready to ride the bicycle on his way to Guhana. The relations between the deceased and the witness being that of an uncle and nephew who are living in the same house and a nephew who is so considerate as to woke up early in the morning, open the door for the uncle and help the latters cycle ready for him, the witness could have requested the uncle, who was anyway going to Guhana, to hire a tractor for him from there for the days ploughing and thus save him the unnecessary trip to Guhana. 8. PW. Surajmal and Mulchand are said to have been ploughing their land near the scene of offence at 3 A.M. when they claim to have heard the cries for help raised by the deceased. Their presence at the scene of occurrence is as unbelievable as that of any other witness. A reference to the site plan, Ex. P/3, would show that their land is no where near the scene of occurrence. On the other hand the plan would show that on both sides of the rasta these are fields of gujjara belonging to village Guhana. PW. Mulchand himself admitted, rather unwittingly, that the scene of offence is surrounded on all sides by fields belonging to residents of Guhana. Both Surajmal and Mulchand would have us believe that their land is situate three or four fields away from the rasta. If so, one would have thought that the prosecution would prove this fact and satisfy the court that their land is situate within earshot of the scene of occurrence and that they had ploughed it freshly that morning. It is so easy to prove fresh furrows. All that the investigating officer needed in that behalf was to see the land for himself and the so-called freshly drawn furrows in it at the time when he visited the scene of offence later that morning. It is so easy to prove fresh furrows. All that the investigating officer needed in that behalf was to see the land for himself and the so-called freshly drawn furrows in it at the time when he visited the scene of offence later that morning. Let alone seeing the land in question or the furrows, the investigation officer has not even indicated that land any where in the site plan suggesting the conclusion therefore that the scene of offence and that in any case it had not been freshly ploughed. 9. Similarly we are not prepared to believe that Devla and Parmoli PWs were present at the scene of occurrence. Both of them would have us believe that they had woken up before 3 A. M. that morning and gone out into the fields for morning ablutions. Devla says when he reached the sport on hearing the cries of the deceased and Surajmal PW, he found Surajmal, Mulchand and Bhajan Singh standing there and the accused running away indicating that he had not witnessed the infliction of blows to the deceased. His attention was drawn to his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. wherein he did not mention the presence of Mulchand on the spot. He could not explain the omission except saying that he had mentioned this fact to the police. Mulchand says that when he reached the spot Surajmal, Devla and Parmoli were already present there. He changed this statement on second thoughts and added that Devla and Parmoli reached there sometime latter. Both Devla and Parmoli can legitimately be described as chance witnesses. There evidence does not inspire any confidence. 10. Mulchand told the police in his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C, that he saw Surajmal and Bhajan Singh running towards the scene of offence and going ahead of him. If the prosecution story is to be believed, Bhajan Singh and Surajmal reached the scene of occurrence from different directions. They could not possibly be seen running together towards the scene of offence. Mulchand realised this absurdity of his statement to the police and therefore tried to explain it away by saying that he did not make the said statement before the police. He is a wholly unreliable witness. 11. They could not possibly be seen running together towards the scene of offence. Mulchand realised this absurdity of his statement to the police and therefore tried to explain it away by saying that he did not make the said statement before the police. He is a wholly unreliable witness. 11. As already stated, all the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence are close relatives of the deceased and members of the village faction led by him. They were definitely on inimical terms with all the accused. The accused and the witnesses were involved as opposite parties in several civil and criminal cases before the occurrence. All of them being enemies of the accused the latter would not have spored them if they had seen them present anywhere near the scene of occurrence. They would however have us believe that the accused did not even try to assault them. They would have us further believe that they left the scene and went back to their fields or the village, leaving the dead body of a close relative lying in the rasta. All the circumstances would show that they were not present at the scene of offence. Their evidence does not stand the test of scrutiny. It suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies. The so-called ocular evidence is therefore of no avail to the prosecution. 12. There is no other evidence to connect the appellants with the crimes charged against them. 13. For all these reasons the appellants richly deserve the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow their appeal, set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit them. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.Appeal allowed. *******