JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 8-4-1974 in Sessions Trial No. 17-B/7 of 1972 whereby he acquitted the respondent herein, of the charge under section 302 I. P. Q. 2. This case relates to the murder of Smt. Darshanu wife of Shri Khiali Ram (PW) alleged to have been committed in village Bandhokhar, Tehsil Bilaspur, in the evening of 8-1-1972. The prosecution case as revealed from the evidence recorded during the course of trial is that Smt. Darshanu deceased at the time of the occurrence was working in the court-yard of her cattle shed near her residential house when P. W. 8 Smt. Shiv Dei and P. W. 9 Smt. Banti who are her daughters-in-law reached that cattle shed with their respective loads of grass which they had cut from a grass field known as Khilli Ruta located in the same village. Bakshi Ram respondent along with Sarvshri Santa, Nandu, Sham Lai, Dhani Ram and seven ladies, namely, Smt Ajudhya wife of Santa, Ajudhya wife of Nathu, Mahanti wife of Bakshi Ram, Kaili wife of Chandu, Bohatu wife of Kishan Dayal, Ram Dei wife of Nandu and Reshmu wife of Gobind also reached there and these persons questioned also why P. Ws. Shiv Dei and Banti had cut grass from the aforesaid Khilli Ruta which these persons claimed as their exclusive property. Smt. Darshanu deceased on that retorted that the aforesaid Khilli Ruta was a common property of the parties in which she too had a right to cut grass and that none could stop her from doing so. 3. This altercation was followed by the exchange of abuses between the aforesaid parties. Bakshi Ram respondent at that time was carrying a Dun la in his hand while his other associates were carrying stones. Enraged by the abuses which were being exchanged. Bakshi Ram respondent aimed a Danda blow on P. W. Shiv Dei who, however, managed to avoid the same by jumping down the Danda. Bakshi Ram respondent then inflicted another Danda blow which struck against the head of Smt. Darshanu who as a result thereof fell down unconscious on the ground and soon after expired. The other associates of Bakshi Ram respondent hurled stones at the three ladies, namely, Smt. Darshanu and her two daughters-in-law P. Ws. Shiv Dei and Banti. 4. Bakshi Ram respondent then inflicted another Danda blow which struck against the head of Smt. Darshanu who as a result thereof fell down unconscious on the ground and soon after expired. The other associates of Bakshi Ram respondent hurled stones at the three ladies, namely, Smt. Darshanu and her two daughters-in-law P. Ws. Shiv Dei and Banti. 4. After Smt. Darshanu fell down unconscious, P. Ws. Shiv Dei and Banti raised an alarm on which the respondent alongwith all his associates ran away from the spot. 5. This occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by P. Ws. Gulaba Ram (P. W. 1), Hari Ram (P. W. 2), Ganga Ram (P. W. 4), Dilu Ram (P. W. 6) and Sukh Dev (P. W. 11). 6. As the male members of the family of Smt. Darshanu deceased were not present in the village at the time of the occurrence, Smt. Shiv Dei, after the respondent and his associates ran away, deputed P. W. Banti to go to village Digthali to bring P. W. Bhora. On the way to village Digthali P. W. Smt. Banti met P. W. Paras Ram who is the son of the deceased and the husband of P. W. 8 Smt. Shiv Dei. Smt. Banti P. W. told Paras Ram about the occurrence on learning which P. W. Paras Ram also reached the spot, P. W. Paras Ram then with the help of his wife Smt. Shiv Dei carried the dead body of his mother Smt. Darshanu from the court-yard of the cattle shed to his residential house. 7. On the next morning P. W. 1 Shri Gulaba Ram and P. W. 5 Shri Nanku were deputed to lodge the report with the Police at Police Station Saddar, Bilaspur. These P. Ws. reached the Police Station at about 1-30 p. m. and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P. W. I/A at 1-45 p. m. A. S. I. Madho Ram (P. W. 16) who was then present in the Police Station recorded this F. I. R. in the absence of the Station House Officer and then he accompanied the above named P. Ws. to the spot where they reached the same evening. On reaching the spot A. S. I. Madho Ram examined the dead body, inspected the spot, interrogated the persons present and then prepared the Inquest Report Ex. P. W. 2/B. He also arrested Bakshi Ram respondent. to the spot where they reached the same evening. On reaching the spot A. S. I. Madho Ram examined the dead body, inspected the spot, interrogated the persons present and then prepared the Inquest Report Ex. P. W. 2/B. He also arrested Bakshi Ram respondent. 8. On the next day, that is, 10-2-1972 the dead body of Smt. Darshanu was sent to the Civil Hospital, Bilaspur for post-mortem examination. Later in the day P. W^ Shri Roop Singh, the then Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Bilaspur, also reached the spot and took charge of the investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also arrested the other associates of the respondent. Shri Roop Singh S. H. O. also interrogated Bakshi Ram respondent and recorded his statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act in pursuance of which the respondent got recovered Danda Ex. P. 1 the alleged weapon of offence. After completion of the investigation the respondent along* with all his associates was challaned to the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur, under sections 302/148/149 1. P. C. 9. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate after recording the evidence of the three eye witnesses formed the view that prima facie the respondent and his father Santa alone were responsible for the death of the deceased and the other ten accused-persons were only innocent spectators. He accordingly discharged those ten accused-persons. Since Santa accused expired during the course of commitment proceedings, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate committed the present respondent alone to the Court of Sessions to face his trial under section 302 I. P. C. 10. The plea of the respondent in the trial Court as is apparent from his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. was that on the day of occurrence he was free from his duty at about 5 p. m. whereafter he left for his house. On reaching his house he gave fodder to his bullocks and also gave them water to drink. After so doing when he was coming to his house he found Smt, Darshanu and her two daughters-in-law P. Ws. Shiv Dei and Banti quarrelling with four other ladies, namely, Kaili, Bohtu, Ram Dei and Reshmu (all these four ladies had been arrayed as accused in the committing Court). All these ladies were exchanging abuses and pelting stones at one another. Shiv Dei and Banti quarrelling with four other ladies, namely, Kaili, Bohtu, Ram Dei and Reshmu (all these four ladies had been arrayed as accused in the committing Court). All these ladies were exchanging abuses and pelting stones at one another. The respondent on seeing this quarrel got enraged and he abused both the parties. The dispute thereafter ended and he proceeded to his house. The time, according to the respondent, when he saw the above occurrence was about 7 or 7-30 p.m. In other words the respondent admitted that there was some quarrel between the ladies inter se but he denied if he took any active part therein. 11. The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the oral testimony of as many as 7 eye witnesses, namely, Shri Gulaba Ram (P. W. 1) Shri Hari Ram (P. W. 2), Shri Ganga Ram (P. W. 4), Shri Nanku (P. W. 5), Smt. Shiv Dei (P. W. 8), Smt. Banti (P. W. 9) and Shri Sukh Dev (P. W. 11) besides the medical evidence and other circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge was, however, not impressed by the oral evidence of these so-called eye witnesses as! according to him, there was no cogent, independent and convincing evidence to connect the respondent-accused with the murder of Smt. Darshanu. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly ordered the acquittal of the respondent. 12. We have heard at considerable length Mr. Joseph Dina Nath Advocate on behalf of the appellant State and Shri H. C. Anand Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also been carried through the entire material evidence on the record. After giving our due consideration to such evidence as also to the submissions made by either side, we have without any hesitation come to the conclusion that in the instant case there is no scope for interference with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. Of course there is no manner of doubt that Smt. Darshanu met with her end on 8-1-197 l and it is equally true that it was not a natural death but was the result of violence. As per medical evidence furnished by Dr. Kapoor (P. W. 3) who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Darshanu deceased, the following arte mortem injuries were found on her person :— 1. Swelling with bluish discolourisation, left upper and lower eyelids. As per medical evidence furnished by Dr. Kapoor (P. W. 3) who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Darshanu deceased, the following arte mortem injuries were found on her person :— 1. Swelling with bluish discolourisation, left upper and lower eyelids. 2. Swelling left sub temporal of fossa and revealing clotted blood (haematoma) on the disection with fracture of the left frontal bone in the fore-head region. 3. Two clots of blood over the web9 of right index and middle, middle and ring fingers towards dorsal aspect of right hand about 1/4 Cm. x 1/4 Cm. with abrasion underlying. Injury No. 2, mentioned above, was according to the medical opinion the cause of the death. 14. The doctor also opined that this fatal injury could have been caused by any blunt weapon provided a thin cloth intervened between the blow and the seat of the injury, that is, the fore-head. In answer to further questions the Doctor stated that this injury could also be caused by a fall, by a stick or by a large stone. The fatal injury thus, according to the medical opinion, could have been the result of either a fall, or a stick blow or the impact of a large stone. It being the case of the prosecution itself that several persons had pelted stones at the deceased and her two daughters-in-law during the course of the occurrence and that also from a very close range, and it being also not disputed that the deceased had a fall before her death, the onus lying on the prosecution becomes all the more heavier to prove, that the fatal injury on the person of the deceased was caused by the respondent with his Danda and that it was not the sequence of either the fall suffered by her or the stones pelted on her by other persons. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the State vey vehemently argued that the prosecution version stood proved beyond reasonable doubt by the ocular evidence furnished by the seven eye-witnesses named above who had seen the respondent inflicting the fatal Danda blow on the head of the deceased and whose evidence found full corroboration from the medical opinion of Dr. Kapoor (PW. 3). Kapoor (PW. 3). The question whether the fatal blow found on the person of the deceased was inflicted by the respondent with his Danda or it was caused in some other manner of the type mentioned above, would obviously depend upon the appreciation of the oral evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses. 16. Before we proceed to assess the value to be attached to the evidence of these eye-witnesses, we consider it desirable to advert to some of the circumstances appearing on the record which operate to create a doubt in our minds if the role played by the Police in this case has been fair and honest and if the prosecution version placed before us is not tainted. The learned counsel for the State while strongly defending the Police Officers argued that there is no warrant for the proposition that the Police Officers while acting in the discharge of their official duties commit any bungling and on the other hand there is every reason and justification to presume that they act within the scope of rules and law and the testimony furnished by them touching their official functions must, therefore, be considered as reliable. We do endorse the view that all public servants, the Police Officers being no exception, must be assumed, as indeed, they are expected in the discharge of their official duties and functions, to act fairly, honestly and within the scope of law. It would of course be taking too perverse a view to consider that the testimony furnished by the Police Officers in respect of their activities in the course of performance of their official functions in untrustworthy and unreliable merely on the ground of their official status. In case, however, they depart from the well recognized and authoritatively declared channels of their official duties and functions and commit glaring violations of the mandatory provisions of rules and directions in the discharge of their official functions, it must be considered a good ground to discredit their testimony as unreliable unless cogent and convinging explanation is furnished for their failure to adhere to and comply with the normal rules and directions. 17. The two basic documents on which the foundation of a criminal trial on a charge of murder is laid are the First Information Report and the Inquest Report. 17. The two basic documents on which the foundation of a criminal trial on a charge of murder is laid are the First Information Report and the Inquest Report. If these two reports are prepared faithfully, honestly and diligently and at the earliest possible opportunity there would be let a very little scope for the Police to bungle with the investigation and for the accused to attack the role of the Police. In case, however, the circumstances under which such reports are prepared are encricled by a ring of suspicion, it may not be safe to accept the Police version at its face value except in very rare cases. The importance of these two documents, namely, the First Information Report and the Inquest Report was high-lighted by Justice H. R. Khanna in the case: Gurdev Singh and others v. The State, 1963 Punjab Law Reports 409, in the following words: "One of the essential requisites to ensure a fair trial is that the first information report in respect of a cognizable offence should be lodged a soon as possible. Where the lodging of the report is delayed, it not only gets bereft of its spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of coloured versions, thought out stories and twists of actual facts. The interested parties can then be sounded and some of them shown as false witnesses. Likewise, some innocent persons can be roped in and named as culprits as a result of much thought, consultation and discussion. To avoid these dangers, the Courts have always insisted upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police. In murder cases, because of the enormity of the stakes involved, certain additional safeguards are provided to ensure that the version of the occurrence is disclosed as soon as possible thereafter. One of those safeguards is that in murder cases a copy of the first information report should be sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate immediately after the report is made. This is provided in rule 24.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume III, 1959 edition, the relevant portion of which reads as under :— "In murder cases the following procedure shall be followed ;— (i) The First information report shall be sent to the Magistrate concerned immediately in his court during court hours and at his residence thereafter. This is provided in rule 24.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume III, 1959 edition, the relevant portion of which reads as under :— "In murder cases the following procedure shall be followed ;— (i) The First information report shall be sent to the Magistrate concerned immediately in his court during court hours and at his residence thereafter. (ii) In case the Magistrate concerned is out of station, the first information report shall be submitted to the Duty Magistrate. (iii) If the Magistrate is not available after court hours, the copy of the first information report shall be left at his house by the messenger noting the date and hour of delivery on the cover with the contents. (iv) If on account of difficulties of communication or other causes the delivery is delayed, the reasons and delay shall be noted on the cover. - (v) As soon as the first information report is received by a Magistrate he shall affix his initials therefor and note thereon the date and hour at which the report has been received by him. In the case of a delayed first information report, if he disagrees with the reasons given by the police officer for such delay, he shall also give his own reason for the same, if any. (vi) In cases where the police station is not situated in the same place where the Magistrate resides or where the police station is situated in an out-of-the way place, the carbon copy of the first information report after it has been recorded, shall be posted at once at the nearest post office, addressed to the Magistrate by name before the first clearance of the dak. In such cases the Magistrate shall check that the first information report has been despatched by the earliest post after its registration in the police station as shown by the time recorded on it." "Another factor which may go to show that there was not very great delay in disclosing the version of the occurrence is to give the facts of the occurrence in the inquest report which contains a special space for reproducing the facts of the occurrence. According to section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure investigating officer when preparing the inquest report should "draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted". The inquest report is a document of vital importance and ha9 to be prepared promptly because it has to be sent to the doctor alongwith the dead body when the body is sent for post mortem examination. The doctor then signs or puts his initials on the inquest report. If facts about the occurrence are mentioned in the inquest report it would go to show that by that time in any case the version of the occurrence has been given. If, however, the facts of the occurrence are not mentioned in the inquest report, the argument that till that time the investigating officer who prepared the inquest report was not sure about the facts, cannot be deemed to be devoid of force." 18. In the instant case the occurrence relating to the death of Smt. Darshanu is alleged to have taken place on 8-1-1972 at about 5.30 p. m. in village Bandhokhar which is admittedly at a distance of only 8 or 9 milometres from the Police Post, Namhol. In normal course a report of this occurrence was expected to have been lodged at that police Post the same evening or latest by the next morning. It is admitted by all the concerned P. Ws. that the Head-constable Incharge Police Post Namhol was the first to reach the spot alongwith a constable.4 This Head-constable reached in the fore-noon of 9-1-1972 and on reaching there he summoned the respondent-accused and detained him till the arrival of the Bilaspur Police. Under the circumstances it wont be unreasonable to assume that some report about this occurrence had been lodged with the Police Post, Namhol on or before 9-1-1972 and it was only in pursuance of this report that the Incharge Police Post, Namhol reached the spot and effected the apprehension of the accused. Under the circumstances it wont be unreasonable to assume that some report about this occurrence had been lodged with the Police Post, Namhol on or before 9-1-1972 and it was only in pursuance of this report that the Incharge Police Post, Namhol reached the spot and effected the apprehension of the accused. Under the rules the Incharge Police Post, Namhol was required to record the information received by him in the Roznamcha of the Police Post and to forward a copy thereof to the concerned Police Station for registration of the case. No such report has been produced on the record nor has the Head-constable Incharge of the Police Post been examined to explain the circumstances under which he visited the spot in connection with this case in the forenoon of 9-1-1972 and detained the respondent-accused. There are thus reasons to believe that the first version of the occurrence as conveyed at the Police Post Namhol has been intentionally withheld from the Court. The plea of the prosecution that no information whatever regarding this occurrence was given at the Police Post Namhol would in view of the admitted facts of this case carry no conviction. 19, Again, as per prosecution case, the First Information Report in this case was recorded at 1.45 p. m. on 9-1-1972 at the Police Station Saddar Bilaspur which is only at a distance of one furlong or so from the Court as also the residence of the Magistrate having jurisdiction in that area. The report thus having been lodged during the Court hours, a copy of the same in terms of rule 24.5, of the Punjab Police Rules ought to have been delivered to the Magistrate in his Court immediately after it was recorded. If for any reason which had to be recorded, the report could not be delivered during the Court hours, it was obligatory on the part of the Police to have delivered the same later in the day at the residence of the Magistrate Ex. P. W. I/A is the copy of the First Information Report which was delivered in this case to the Magistrate and the endorsement thereon shows that it was delivered to the Magistrate only on 10-1-1972 during Court hours though the actual time of delivery is not mentioned. P. W. I/A is the copy of the First Information Report which was delivered in this case to the Magistrate and the endorsement thereon shows that it was delivered to the Magistrate only on 10-1-1972 during Court hours though the actual time of delivery is not mentioned. No explanation has been furnished as to why this report could not be delivered immediately after it was recorded and in any case on the day when it was recorded. There has thus been a glaring violation of the provisions of rule 24.5 of the Police Rules and no effort has been made to justify this violation or to bring on record the circumstances leading to such violation. 20. In order to ascertain how prompt an action is taken by the Police ia a particular case, a separate column has been provided, being column No. 7, in the form prescribed for the First Information Report wherein the time of departure of the Police Officer from the Police Station for the spot after recording the F. I. R. is required to be mentioned. In the instant case such column has been left blank. 21. A. S, I. Shri Madho Ram who recorded the First Information Report in this case while appearing as P. W. 16 deposed that he left the Police Station at 1.45 p. m. on 9-1-1972 immediately after recording the First Information Report and reached the spot at 9 p. m. This was obviously a deliberate effort on the part of the A. S I. to conceal the factual position and in fact this conduct of this A. S. I. lends further suspicion to the circumstances under which the F. L R. came to be recorded. As per Paras Ram (P. W. 7) who is the son of the deceased, A. S. I. Madho Ram had reached the spot on 9-1-1972 at about 2.30 p. m. or 3 p. m. Ganga Ram (P. W. 4) on this point had stated that A. S. 1. Madho Ram reached at the spot at about 4 p. m. According to Khiali Ram (P. W. 12) who is the husband of the deceased, the Bilaspur Police had reached the spot on 9-1-1972 before evening. Madho Ram reached at the spot at about 4 p. m. According to Khiali Ram (P. W. 12) who is the husband of the deceased, the Bilaspur Police had reached the spot on 9-1-1972 before evening. It is, however, in the evidence of all these witnesses that on 9-1-1972 after reaching the spot, the A. S. I. Madho Ram examined the dead body, inspected the spot, interrogated the witnesses present and then prepared the Inquest Report, Ex. P. W. 2/B. All these proceedings could not have been conducted the same night in case A. S. I. Madho Ram had reached the spot at 9 p. m. as alleged by him. The version of the prosecution witnesses named above that A. S. I. Madho Ram had reached the spot during day time by about 4 p. m. appears to be more convening. After recording the F. I. R. at 1.45 p. m. at the Police Station in was not possible for A. S. I. Madho Ram to reach the spot by 4. p. m. This only shows that the time of recording the F. I. R- as given by this A. S. I. is only imaginary. This is yet another circumstance which shows that the true circumstances under which the F. I. R. was recorded, have not been brought on the record. 22. Again, the Inquest Report, Ex. P. W. 2/B, is said to have been prepared on the spot after interrogating a number of persons including the alleged eye-witnesses. There is a special column in the Inquest Report where the facts of the occurrence as collected upto the time of preparation of the report, are required to be recorded. No such facts as have now been deposed by the alleged eye-witnesses in the Court, brind mention in the Inquest Report suggesting thereby that this version had not been revealed by these witnesses at the time of the preparation of the Inquest Report although they were duly interrogated. In fact the Inquest Report does not suggest if any of the witnesses interrogated at that time was an eye-witness to the occurrence. 23. The First Information Report purports to have been recorded at the instance of P. W. Gulaba who claims to be an eye-witness but it is rather strange that he failed to mention the name of any other eye-witness except the victims of the occurrence, in his First Information Report. 23. The First Information Report purports to have been recorded at the instance of P. W. Gulaba who claims to be an eye-witness but it is rather strange that he failed to mention the name of any other eye-witness except the victims of the occurrence, in his First Information Report. On the other hand the F. I. R. reads that soon after the occurrence Banta etc reached the spot suggesting thereby that there was no eye-witness and that Banta and others were first to reach the spot after the occurrence was over. 24. There is then the statement of P. W. 5 Nanaku who accompanied P. W. 1 Gulaba to the Police Station for lodging the First Information Report. This witness is the Lamberdar of village Bandhokhar and on being informed about the murder of Smt. Darshanu he claims to have reached the house of the deceased. On reaching there he was informed about Smt. Darshanu having been murdered. The witness then claims to have enquired as to who had committed the murder but no body .replied to his query. The witness insisted to know the name of the murderer but none of the people present there including Hari Ram (P. W. 2), Paras Ram (P. W. 7), Smt. Shiv Dei (P. W. 8) and Gulaba (P. W. 1) told him about the name of the murderer and all of them simply told him to accompany Gulaba to the Police Station and Gulaba would tell him about the facts of the occurrence on the way. P. W. 8 Smt. Shiv Dei is the daughter of the real brother of this witness. Thus according to this witness none of the persons present on the spot was in a position to name the murderer of Smt. Darshanu in the morning of 9-1-1972 although the witness 4had made persistent queries on this point from all the persons present. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness who, as already stated, is a close relation of P. W. Smt. Shiv Dei the daughter-in-law of the deceased. 25. All these circumstances taken together do create a positive doubt if the investigation in this case has been fair and honest. 26. Now reverting to the evidence of the eye witnesses, the same has to be assessed in the back-ground of the circumstances narrated above. 25. All these circumstances taken together do create a positive doubt if the investigation in this case has been fair and honest. 26. Now reverting to the evidence of the eye witnesses, the same has to be assessed in the back-ground of the circumstances narrated above. The first eye witness is P. W. 1 Gulaba who had lodged the First Information Report. There are serious discrepancies between his statement made under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that recorded in the Court. In the F. I. R, he had stated that al! the 12 persons who bad been initially challaned in this case in the Court of the committing Magistrate, were found standing in the court-yard of the cattle shed of Smt. Darshanu when he reached there at about 5.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence. The case during the course of trial, however, was that except for the respondent and his father, the other ten accused person were standing outside on the path and none of them had entered the court-yard. This P. W. had further stated in the F. I. R. that Bakshi Ram respondent first gave a stick blow to Smt. Shiv Dei which hit her below the back side of her waist and as a result of which she fell down. In the Court he stated that the stick blow never hit Smt. Shiv Dei as she managed to avoid it by jumping down. His further statement in the F. I. R. was that after Smt. Darshanu fell down unconscious, Banti P. W. ran away to another village raising alarm and later Banta etc. also arrived on the spot. In his statement during the trial this witness tried to explain that by Banta etc. he meant P. W. Banti etc. This explanation of this witness cannot be accepted because according to the witness Smt Banti had already gone to another village and it was thereafter that Banta etc. had come on the spot. All these discrepancies will show that the witness had to knowledge of the actual occurrence Again be had stated that he had tried to intervene but on this he was contradicted by P. W. Smt. Banti as also by P. W. Smt. Shiv Dei according to whom no person had intervened at the time of the occurrence. All these discrepancies will show that the witness had to knowledge of the actual occurrence Again be had stated that he had tried to intervene but on this he was contradicted by P. W. Smt. Banti as also by P. W. Smt. Shiv Dei according to whom no person had intervened at the time of the occurrence. This witness admitted his strained relations with the family of the respondent which might explain the reason for his appearing as a witness against the respondent. P. W. 2 Hari Ram is the brother of P. W. 1 Gulaba. After narrating the occurrence in detail as done by P. W. Gulaba this witness later stated that he heard the exchange of abuses from his house and that be was at a distance when the respondent gave Lathi blow to the deceased. In cross examination he admitted that on the day of occurrence at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. he was smoking Huqa in his house when he heard the exchange of abuses. It was on hearing such abuses that he left ht9 house for the scene of occurrence. Inspite of this he claimed to know and narrated the incident from the very beginning commencing from the altercation over the loads of grass which admittedly had taken place much before the exchange of abuses The statement made by P. W. 4 Ganga Ram in his examination-in-chief was almost similar to that made by P. W. 2 Hart Ram with the exception that whereas according to the previous witness the respondent had given the first Lathi blow which failed to hit on Smt. Shiv Dei, according to this witness such blow was also aimed at Smt. Darshanu. He was also at his house when he heard the abuses but still was in a position to give an eye witness account from the very beginning. He remained wate the police right from the time of its arrival on y-l-1972 till* 2-1-1972 but his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded only on the last day. P. W. 6 Dilu, however, refused to support the prosecution. 27. The learned Sessions Judge refused to believe the aforesaid witnesses on the plea that their names did not figure either in the First Information Report or in the Inquest Report as eye witnesses and otherwise also their evidence was not confidence inspiring. P. W. 6 Dilu, however, refused to support the prosecution. 27. The learned Sessions Judge refused to believe the aforesaid witnesses on the plea that their names did not figure either in the First Information Report or in the Inquest Report as eye witnesses and otherwise also their evidence was not confidence inspiring. We find nothing wrong or objectionable in this view taken by the learned Sessions Judge who had the additional advantage of noting demeanour of the prosecution witnesses. The further fact that none of them was examined under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seen after the arrival of the Police though all of them were present adds to the doubt that these P. Ws. had seen the occurrence. In this connection it may also be mentioned that as per prosecution story P. W. Smt. Banti went to another village Digthali soon after the occurrence just to bring P. W. Bhora. This only shows that no other man was present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and hence the ladies felt the necessity of bringing some male member from the adjoining village. P. W. Bhora on his arrival did not play any special role which these so-called eye witnesses could not have played. It is thus highly doubtful if these persons were present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and hence the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting their evidence. 28. As regards P. W. 11 Sukh Dev who is a child witness, it stands admitted by P. W. 9 Smt. Banti as also P. W. 8 Smt. Shiv Dei that this witness at the time of the occurrence was playing in the court-yard of the residential house which is at some distance from the court-yard of the cattle shed where the occurrence took place. Sukh Dev P. W. himself admitted that he along-with his two younger sisters was playing in the court-yard of his residential house where no body had come at the time of the occurrence. According to this witness there is a high Danga between the court-yard of the cattle shed where the occurrence took place and the court-yard of the house where the witness was playing. According to this witness there is a high Danga between the court-yard of the cattle shed where the occurrence took place and the court-yard of the house where the witness was playing. This witness was not, therefore, in a position to see the occurrence for himself especially if we bear in mind that it was almost sun set and there was no sufficient light. 29. As regards Shiv Dei (P. W. 8), it is again doubtful if she was present in the court-yard when the respondent is alleged to have inflicted the lathi blow on the deceased. Her sister-in-law (P. W. 9) Smt. Banti admitted in her cross examination that Smt. Shiv Dei had already jumped away from the court-yard and was not present there when her mother-in-law Smt. Darshanu got the fatal blow. In the face of this evidence of P. W. Smt. Banti it looks difficult to believe if Smt. Shiv Dei P. W. had the occasion to witness the occurrence. We are thus left with the solitary statement of P. W. Smt. Banti. According to her there was and indiscriminate pelting of stones at the time of the occurrence and since she received stone blow the inference is that she too hand run away. 30. In view of what has been stated above it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the fatal blow on the person of the deceased was caused by the respondent with a Lathi. It being the admitted case of the prosecution that a number of persons had been pelting stones on the deceased and her daughters-in-law, the possibility of the deceased having received a stone blow cannot be ruled out. The medical evidence that the fatal blow could be caused by a stone lends further support to this possibility. 31. In view of the evidence discussed above it cannot be said that the conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge in this case are not based upon any evidence nor could it be said that such conclusions are perverse in the sence that no reasonable man re-enforced by adequate knowledge of law on the subject, could as a result of his appreciation of the evidence produced, arrive at such like conclusions, so as to call for interference by this Court in the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We accordingly find that this appeal is without merit and hence dismiss it. Appeal dismissed,-