JUDGMENT 1. - This judgment will deal with two criminal appeals listed above, both of which have arisen from the judgment dated, January 31,1975, passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar thereby he convicted the appellants Sehmal, Mst. Mankori & Sultan in criminal appeal No. 92 of 1975, under Section 302 and 325 I.P.C. and acquitted the co-accused Hari Singh, Mst. Sona and Rajjo, the respondents in the State Appeal No. 498 of 1975 of all the charges framed against them including the charge under Sections 302 and 325 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, which resulted in the judgment of conviction against some of the accused and acquittal in favour of others as mentioned above, may be shortly stated here. On April 15, 1974, Mst. Nangi (PW. 1) went to fetch water from the village well. She returned home without her shoes which she forget to wear before leaving the well. She sent her daughter, Mst. Chhimlo, to the well to retrieve the shoes. On getting some information that Mst. Mankori and her daughter Mst. Rajjo had taken away the shoes, Chhimlo went to their house and enquired about the shoes. Mankori and Rajjo slapped Chhimlo for her cheekiness in making the enquiry. Chhimlo returned home and complained to her mother about the slapping. Nangi immediately went to Mankorins house and exchange hot words with her. 3. It appears that this small dispute over the shoes took a serious turn on April 16, 1974, when the man-folk on both sides took cognizance of it. Sehmal, a brother of Mankori's husband Sultan, challenged the man-folk of Nangi's family on April 16, afternoon, threatening to kill them. The co-villagers intervened & prevented possible fight between the parties. The prosecution story further goes that the same evening at about 6-00 p.m. Nangi & her husband Bansel were on their way to a well in the outskirts of the village to water their animals from there. Both husband and wife were surrounded by Sehmal, Sultan, Hari Singh, Mst. Sona, Mst. Rajjo and Mst. Mankori in Shivlals field. Sehmal, who was armed with a far si struck that weapon on the head of Bansi. Mankori, who was armed with kasia, followed suit Sultan who carried a lathi, gave the third blow on Bansi's head and felled him on the ground. Nangi stood by and cried for help. On hearing cries, Jawaharlal (PW. Mankori in Shivlals field. Sehmal, who was armed with a far si struck that weapon on the head of Bansi. Mankori, who was armed with kasia, followed suit Sultan who carried a lathi, gave the third blow on Bansi's head and felled him on the ground. Nangi stood by and cried for help. On hearing cries, Jawaharlal (PW. 2), Sheopal (PW. 5) Bhonriya (PW. 9), Surajbhan deceased and Bharta deceased, reached there. They tried to intercede and remove Bansi injured from there. All five of them were attacked and severely injured by the aforementioned accused. 4. All the six injured, namely, Bansi, Surajbhan, Jawaharlal, Bharta, Bhonriya and Sheopal were taken to the civil hospital, Behror and examined there by Dr. Vishnu Kumar Mathur (PW. 6). Bansi died on April 19, 1974, as a result of the injuries suffered by him in this transaction. Surajbhan also died of his injuries on April 21, 1974. Bharta, an old man, who had recovered from such injuries died a natural death subsequently. 5. On being informed about the arrival of the injured in the hospital, Shobharam (PW. 10) S.H.O. Behror went there on April 17, 1974 at 9.30 p. m., and recorded the statement of Sheopal (PW. 6). The said statement was sent to the police station where a formal F.I.R. was registered on its basis at 12.10 p.m. 6. On investigation the police filed a challan against Sehmal, Sultan, Hari Singh, Mst. Sona, Mst. Rajjo and Mst. Mankori under sections 148, 302, 302-149 and 325 I.P.C. During the trial, the prosecution examined, among others, Nangi, Jawaharlal, Dr. Vishnukumar Mathur, Sheopal, Dr. P.S. Agrawal, Bhonriya and Shobharam as witnesses in support of its case. PW. Nangi, Jawaharlal, Sheopal and Bhonriya the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence supported the prosecution case as narrated above. 7. Dr. P.S. Agrawal, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Surajbhan on the forehead and parietal region a bruise on the left arm and haematoma both on right temporal region and left temporal region. He discovered fracture of the right frontal and parietal bones with thick blood clot over right fronto temporal parietal region pressing over the brain. The brain was compressed. Dr. Agrawal opined that Surajbhan had died due to fracture of skull and hemorrhage and compression of brain. He discovered fracture of the right frontal and parietal bones with thick blood clot over right fronto temporal parietal region pressing over the brain. The brain was compressed. Dr. Agrawal opined that Surajbhan had died due to fracture of skull and hemorrhage and compression of brain. These injuries were, in his opinion, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Surajbhan. 8. Dr. Vishnukumar Mathur, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Bansi on April 10, 1974, found 9 external injuries, mostly in the head region of the dead body. On internal examination he found fracture of the left parietal bone with sub dural hemorrhage. Injuries 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to Dr. Mathur, Bansi died due to coma caused by the fracture of the skull. 9. Dr. Vishnu Kumar Mathur also examined the injuries of Bhonriya, Jawaharlal, Sheopal, and Bharta on April 17, 1974. These four had suffered relatively minor injuries. They were discharged from the hospital after few days. 10. The injured, namely, Jawaharlal, Sheopal and Bhonriya were examined on witnesses for the prosecution in the trial. Nangi, who escaped unhurt was also examined as a prosecution witness in this case. As already stated, Bharta who had also been injured in the fight died a natural death subsequently before he could be examined as a witness in the trial. Relying on the evidence of PWs. Nangi, Jawaharlal, Sheopal and Bhonriya, as corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found Sehmal and Mankori guilty of the charge of murder of Surajbhan. Sultan was also held responsible for causing grievous hurt to Jawaharlal, Sheopal and Bhonriya. Consequently Sehmal and Mankori were sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of Bansi and Sultan was awarded similar sentence for the murder of Suraj Bhan, Sultan was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 325 I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to other members of the complainant party. The learned Sessions Judge further came to the conclusion that the charge of rioting under section 148 I.P.C. framed against the accused had not been proved. He further held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hari Singh, Sona and Rajjo had not participated in the commission of any of these crimes. They were accordingly acquitted. 11. He further held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hari Singh, Sona and Rajjo had not participated in the commission of any of these crimes. They were accordingly acquitted. 11. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against them, Sultan, Sehmal, and Mankori have preferred this appeal which, as already stated above, was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1975. The State challenged the acquittal of Hari Singh, Sona and Rajjo and its appeal was registered as criminal Appeal No. 493 of 1975. 12. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that let alone convicting Hari Singh, Sona and Rajjo accused, who have already been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, we will not be able to uphold the conviction of appellants Sehmal, Sultan and Mankori as ordered by the trial court. 13. The prosecution witnesses in this case, as will be presently seen, are all close relations of the accused who were at pains to supress the true genesis of the occurrence. They did not hesitate to falsely implicate innocent persons in the commission of this crime. They did not render any explanation as to the injuries suffered in the course of this transaction by Sultan, Sehmal, Mankori and Rajjo accused. Independent and reliable witnesses like Sheopal, who could have given us a true version of the occurrence were with held by the prosecution. Let us now briefly examine the evidence of each material witness separately. As the discussion of their evidence proceeds, it will he self-evident that none of them can be said to be a witness on whose testimony one may place implicit reliance for recording conviction against the appellants. 14. Nangi (PW.l) is the wife of Bansi deceased. It is on account of her that this grisly fight resulting in injuries to six persons belonging to the complainant party including the two, whose injuries proved to be fatal and four persons belonging to the accused party, took place that fateful evening. Her version is that on April 16, evening, both she and her husband were on their way to the village well to water their animals. She deposed that no sooner had they reached the field of Shivlal, then the accused persons surrounded and attacked her husband. Her version is that on April 16, evening, both she and her husband were on their way to the village well to water their animals. She deposed that no sooner had they reached the field of Shivlal, then the accused persons surrounded and attacked her husband. She deposed that Sehmal had opened the attack on her husband, giving a farsi blow on his head, and that Mankori, who was armed with a Kasia, also struck that weapon on the head of the victim, Sultana, who was armed with a lathi gave the third blow on Bansls head. She saw Bansi's falling on the ground as a result of these blows. She raised a hue and cry. Hearing her cries, Sheopal, Surajbhan, Jawaharlal and Bhonriya reached there. Nangi further stated that after the arrival of these persons at the scene of crime she became unconscious and could not therefore see what had happened afterwards. Cross-examined, Nangi admitted that a number of neighbours had witnessed the occurrence. She was however not prepared to disclose their names on the plea, obviously a false one, that she is unable to recall any. Specifically questioned as to whether Shivlal, in whose field the fight took place, was present there or not, the denied this faet and persisted in the denial even after she was confronted with her earlier statement Ex. D.l, which was recorded during the investigation and in which she had mentioned the name of Shivlal as one of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 15. P. W. Jawaharlal and Bhonriya are real brothers, being sons of one Ramnath. Jawaharlal says that he was sitting in his house that evening when he heard some noise from the direction of Shivlal's field, which according to him is at a distance of nearly 50-60 yards from his house. He went out and saw Sehmal, Mankori and Sultan giving farsi blow, kasia blow and lathi blow, in that order, on the head of Bansi deceased. He further stated that he had also seen Sultan, Hari Singh and Mst. Sona giving lathi blows to Surajbhan who tried to intercede and save Bansi from further injuries. He added in this context that this resulted in a fight between the two parties and that he himself was injured in that fight. According to g him, Sultan Singh, Hari Singh and Sona struck lathi blows to him. Sona giving lathi blows to Surajbhan who tried to intercede and save Bansi from further injuries. He added in this context that this resulted in a fight between the two parties and that he himself was injured in that fight. According to g him, Sultan Singh, Hari Singh and Sona struck lathi blows to him. In his anxiety to carry conviction, he asserted that the fight actually started after he had himself reached the spot. He admitted that Shivlal in whose field the fight took place was present there at the time of occurrence. He further admitted that the residential houses of Hanuman and Kabula are situate in the close proximity of the scene of crime. He however prevaricated as to whether Hanuman and Kabula or any other neighbour had witnessed the occurrence. At first, he admitted that he had seen Mankori, Sehmal and Sultan and Rajjo accused bleeding. A little later, however, when he was eenfronted with his statement Ex. D. 2., recorded during the investigation in which he had stated that he too wielded a lathi in the course of this fight, he went back upon his statement that Mankori, Sultan, Sehmal and Rajjo were bleeding and instead asserted that he had not seen any injury or any of them. He was obviously trying to conceal the truth to the affect that he and his companions had caused injuries to as many as four persons of the accused party. 16. PW. Bhonriya like his brother Jawahar Lal, stated that he too was present in his house when Bansi and Nangi were attacked on their way to the well by the accused and that his attention was attracted that side when he heard the cries of Nangi. He deposed that he himself, Surajbhan, Jawaharlal and Sheopal rushed to the scene of crime and saw that all the six accused had closed in on Bansi deceased. He further stated that Sehmal, Mankori and Sultan struck blows on the head of Bansi deceased with their respective weapons and that Bansi fell down as a result of these injuries. According to him, Surajbhan and Sheopal went forward to help the fallen. Thereupon, Harisingh, Sultan and Sona gave lathi blows to Surajbhan. He further stated that Mst. Rajjo gave a gandase blow to him and Hari Singh gave a Lahti blow to him. 17. It appears that both PW. According to him, Surajbhan and Sheopal went forward to help the fallen. Thereupon, Harisingh, Sultan and Sona gave lathi blows to Surajbhan. He further stated that Mst. Rajjo gave a gandase blow to him and Hari Singh gave a Lahti blow to him. 17. It appears that both PW. Jawaharlal and Bhonriya are closely related to Bansi deceased. Their grand father and Bansi's father appears to be brother. When Bhonriya was reminded about this fact, he denied it, but was not prepared to disclose the name of his grand-father in an attempt to conceal his close relationship with Bansi deceased. 18. PW. Sheopal is the son of Bansi deceased. He stated that he was working in his field at the time of occurrence. According to Jawharlal, the field where Sheopal was working is at a distance of 150 yards from the scene of occurrence. There is a material discrepancy between the version as given by Sheopal on one side and the version of other witnesses on the other, in respect of assailants of Surajbhan deceased. According to Sheopal both he and Surajbhan were attacked and injured by Sehmal, Mankeri and Sultan i.e. the same set of accused who had caused fatal blows too Bansi deceased. P.W. Jawaharlal and Bhonriya, on the other hand, stated that the injuries to Surajbhan were inflicted by Hari Singh, Mst. Sona and Sultan. It is significant to note that the site plan Ex. P/15, which is alleged to have been prepared by the Investigating Officer in the presence of Sheopal does not disclose the situation of Sheopals field where he was working and from where he claims to have rushed to the scene of crime, in relation to the scene of the crime. Sheopal admitted that he had been armed with a lathi. He was however not prepared to admit that he had inflicted any injury to Mst. Mankori with that lathi. 19. Notwithstanding the denial of Nangi (PW. 1) in that behalf, if may be safely concluded on the admission of P.W. Jawaharlal and Sheopal that Shivlal in whose field this un-fortunate occurrence had taken place, was present there. The prosecution did not examine Shivlal as a witness. His non-production in the facts of this case must raise an adverse inference against the prosecution. It is also reasonable to hold that a number of neighbours, including Hanuman and Kabula witnessed the occurrence. PW. The prosecution did not examine Shivlal as a witness. His non-production in the facts of this case must raise an adverse inference against the prosecution. It is also reasonable to hold that a number of neighbours, including Hanuman and Kabula witnessed the occurrence. PW. Shobharam, the Investigating Officer admitted that he had recorded the statements of Hanuman and Kabula under section 161 Cr.P.C. Their non-production as witnesses in this case is also a factor weighing against the prosecution. As already stated, the prosecution witnesses were not prepared to disclose the genesis and origin of the occurrence. They were not even prepared to admit in the trial the presence of injuries on Sultan, Sehmal, Mankori and Rajjo accused. Of course, in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. they told the police that they had inflicted injuries to the accused in the exercise of their fight of private defence. When confronted with their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, they denied having made such statements. In the similar fact-situation, the Supreme Court laid down in Laxmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 S.C. 2263 , that the court would be justified to draw from these facts the following inferences : (i) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (ii) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable. (iii) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. To sum up, we find that the prosecution has with held material witnesses like Shivlal which raises a presumption that if produced they would not have supported the prosecution case. The witnesses produced by the prosecution have suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. They have tried to suppress the presence of the injuries on four of the six accused. They are all closely related to the deceased. Two of them namely Jawaharlal and Bhonriya tried to suppress the fact that they are related to Bansi deceased. None of the alleged eye-witnesses, produced as a prosecution witness, inspires any confidence. They have tried to suppress the presence of the injuries on four of the six accused. They are all closely related to the deceased. Two of them namely Jawaharlal and Bhonriya tried to suppress the fact that they are related to Bansi deceased. None of the alleged eye-witnesses, produced as a prosecution witness, inspires any confidence. It is legitimate to hold in the facts of this case that one or more of the accused persons were falsely implicated by these witnesses. 20. For all these reasons we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges framed against any of the six accused. We would accordingly allow the appeal of Sultan, Sehmal and Mst. Mankori and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against them and, instead, we acquit them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. The State appeal against the acquittal of Hari Singh, Sona and Rajjo stands dismissed for the self-same reasons.Order accordingly. *******