JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated June 2, 1981. By that judgment, the learned Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under sections 120B, 147, 201/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. in connection with the murder of Smt. Gaindi and sentenced them to imprisonment for life on the first count six months R.I. on the second count, three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to under go six months R.I. on the third count and imprisonment for life on the fourth count. They were also convicted for the offence under section 302/149 IPC for the murder of the child of Smt. Gaindi and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned Judge ordered that the sentences awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid charges shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the appellants and their conviction and the present appeal are as under: Smt. Gaindi was married to appellant Harsahai eight or nine years prior to her death. Seduram is the father of Harsahai and Badri is his brother. Since the time of her marriage Smt. Gaindi was not treated well by her in-laws. Being aggrieved by that Smt. Gaindi went to her father's house. At the intervention of some persons and assurance given by the appellants that she would not suffer ill - treatment, she went to the house of her in - laws again.Two and a half or three months prior to her death Smt. Gaindi went to her father's house and gave birth to a son. On February 12, 1980 appellant Harsahai took Smt. Gaindi and her son to his house at Samod from village Chomu. It is alleged that on the same evening the in-laws of Smt. Gaindi picked up quarrel with her and wanted her to leave the house. She insisted upon remaining in the house. Smt. Phooli. sister - in - law of Smt. Gaindi (since acquitted by the trial Court) caught held of her hands and Smt. Soni (died during the course of trial) snatched the child from the lap of Smt. Gaindi and threw it on the floor, which resulted in its death. Sua Lal, Gyarsa, Prabhat, Hanuman, Bhoora and Kajod, relatives of Harsahai are also said to have reached there. They and the three appellants viz. Sua Lal, Gyarsa, Prabhat, Hanuman, Bhoora and Kajod, relatives of Harsahai are also said to have reached there. They and the three appellants viz. Sedu Ram, Harsahai and Badri are said to have dragged Smt Gaindi inside the kotba and gave a beating to her Rameshwar (P.W. 2) and Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 12) are said to have reached there and saw the occurrence. Thereafter in the night the appellants, Smt. Soni and the co-accused took the dead bodies of Smt. Gaindi and her child to a well at a distance of about sixty paundas from the house and threw them inside the well. Next morning Mukand Singh (P W. 13), S.I. In-charge of Police Station, Chomu reached the site. Sujaram (P.W.8) consin of Smt.Gaindi also reached there on hearing of the incident and gave a written report Ex.P.8 to the the S.I., Mukand Singh. That report was sent to Police Station Chomu and case was registered. Mukand Singh proceeded with the investigation. The dead bodies were taken out and their Panchayatnamas prepared. The S.H.O. also went to the house of Harsahai and inspected the room in which the alleged beating is said to have taken place. Statements of witnesses were recorded by him. Clothes of Smt.Gaindi were taken in possession vide memo Ex P.15. 3. Dr. Kamal Bajaj (P. W.19), Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Samod conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Smt Gaindi at 3.00 p.m. on February 13, 1980 and observed as under:- EXTERNAL INJURIES: 1. Lacerated wound lower half of anterior side of right ear 5"x 1/4" 1/2". 2. Lacerted wound on mid parietal region of scalp 1"x 1/4"⅓". 3. Lacerated wound on anterior lateral side of left groin region below inguimal fold 4 I/2"x2 1/2"xl". 4. Lacerated wound on the lateral side of left hid joint just below the illiac crest margine 3 1/2"x ⅓"x ⅛". 5. Lacerated wound on the inferior margine of vagina with bleeding I"x 1/2"x 1/2". 6. Bruise on subental region about half inch posterior to chin 1/2" x ⅙". 7. Bruise on upper border of right shoulder 11/2"x l1/2". 8. Bruise over left patellar region 2"xl". 9 Bruise on the posterior aspect of lower one third of left leg 2"x 1/2". 10. Bruise on the posterior aspect of middle of left leg 11/2"x l", 11. 6. Bruise on subental region about half inch posterior to chin 1/2" x ⅙". 7. Bruise on upper border of right shoulder 11/2"x l1/2". 8. Bruise over left patellar region 2"xl". 9 Bruise on the posterior aspect of lower one third of left leg 2"x 1/2". 10. Bruise on the posterior aspect of middle of left leg 11/2"x l", 11. Bruise on left forehand about 1" proxymal to wrist joint 1"x 1/2" 12 Abrasion on left thigh on posterio-medial aspect about 21/2" below the inguinai fold 4"x 1/2". 13. Abrasion on medical aspect of middle of left thigh 2" x 1". 14. Abrasion on back over right scapular region 5" x 2 1/2". 15. Three linear bruises over right hip-region about 1" apart and parellal size of each was 5" x 1/2". INTERNAL INJURIES: CRANIUM 1. Laceration on the under surface of the scalp on mid parietal region 1" x 1/4". 2. Linear fracture of left temporal bone about 2". 3. Linear fracture over left parietal region 11/2". 4. Effusion of blood in between and on the membrances over mid parietal region and Hyperacmia around this zone. 5. Contusion of the medical portion of the parietal lobes of brain 11/2" x 1". 6 Rupture of left meningeal artery with haematoma over the left parietal region. 4. In the opinion of the Doctor cause of death of Smt. Gaindi was due to shock from multiple injuries sustained by her. According to the Doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The injuries could be caused by a hard blunt object like lathi. The post-mortom examination report is Ex.P.7. 5. On the same date Dr. Bajaj conducted the autopsy over the dead of body of child, about twenty days old, and noted following injuries on its person : EXTERNAL INJURIES : 1. Bruise over right frontal parietal region of scalp 3, 1/2 x 2,1/2". 2 Bruise over left parietal region 1-l/2"xl". INTERNAL INJURIES: 1. Haemorrhage on the under surface of the scalp over the frontal & parietal region. 2. Multiple fractures-depressed of the skull, bones of the from to parietal region. 6. The post-mortem examination report is Ex.P.18. 7. The investigation was then taken over by Brij Mohan Singh (P.W.2), S.H.O., Police Station, Chomu.On February 24, 1980. the three appellants and Smt Soni were arrested. 2. Multiple fractures-depressed of the skull, bones of the from to parietal region. 6. The post-mortem examination report is Ex.P.18. 7. The investigation was then taken over by Brij Mohan Singh (P.W.2), S.H.O., Police Station, Chomu.On February 24, 1980. the three appellants and Smt Soni were arrested. while in custody Harsahai and Badri gave information for getting recovered lathis and got them recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by them from their houses. 8. On April 19,1980 Suja Ram (P.W.8)filed a complaint in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chomu mentioning the names of twelve persons as the culprits.The learned Magistrate under the provision of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure called the report from the police regarding the case. Thereafter the police filed a charge-sheet against the three appellants and Smt. Soni or April 5, 1980. The learned Magistrate enquired into the matter and in view of the complaint filed before him took cognizance against seven more persons named in the complaint. Finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed all the eleven persons to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur to stand their trial.The learned Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences and recorded heir statements. On their denial of the indictments, trial proceeded. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses in all to substantiate its case. The statements of the accused at the trial for the various charges of total denial of the allegations levelled against them. Five defence witnesses were examined. The learned Judge relied on the prosecution case against three appellants and sentenced them as stated earlier Smt. Soni had already died. The learned Judge however did not find the prosecution case proved against the seven persons against whom cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint by Suja Ram and acquitted them of the charges. 9. We heard Mr. O.C. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. Mr. Chatterjee has assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge on number of grounds. He contended that the prosecution case about there being eye witnesses to the occurrence stands falsified by the fact that in the first information report Ex. O.C. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. Mr. Chatterjee has assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge on number of grounds. He contended that the prosecution case about there being eye witnesses to the occurrence stands falsified by the fact that in the first information report Ex. P 8 lodged by Suja Ram (P.W.8) there is no mention of any body seeing the occurrence or the information being sure about the appellants being the perpetrators of the crime.The learned counsel submitted that if the eye-witnesses would have seen what they professed to, there was no reason for them not to disclose those facts to the Police at the time of the preparation of the panchayatnamas of the dead bodies.The truth of the prosecution Version has also been challenged on the ground that the complaint Ex. P 9 against twelve persons was filed in the Court as late as on April 19, 1980 more than two months after the occurrence and thus there was sufficient time for complainant to concoct a false case against the appellants.The learned counsel drew our attention to the inconsis encies in the statement of witnesses before the police and in the court and submitted that they had improved upon their earlier version and, therefore, deserve no consideration. 11. The prosecution case that because of greed the in-laws of Smt. Gaindi were tourturing her.When she returned to her materimonial house along with her twenty old days child, she was not permitted to live there and was given a severe heating. She succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Her little child was also mercilessly thrown by its grandmother and met death. In order to conceal their cruel acts, the appellants took the dead bodies to the well and threw them into it. 12. The prosecution witnesses other than the formal ones, can be divided into three sets. One set relates to the strained relations and the ill-treatment suffered by Smt Gaindi at the hands of her in-laws. The second set relates to the occurrence at the house in which the mother and the son lost their lives.The third set relates to the dead bodies being taken to the well and thrown into it. 13. One set relates to the strained relations and the ill-treatment suffered by Smt Gaindi at the hands of her in-laws. The second set relates to the occurrence at the house in which the mother and the son lost their lives.The third set relates to the dead bodies being taken to the well and thrown into it. 13. The idea behind the prosecution examining the first set of witnesses was to substantiate its case that there was motive behind the appellants causing the henious crime.Suja Ram (P.W.8) is the cousin of deceased Smt. Gaindi. He has deposed that the in-laws of Smt. Gaindi used to ill-treat her because she did not bring dowry with her. According to the witness Smt.Gaindi used to be given beating by her in-laws and, therefore, the villagers made them under stand not to ill.treat the lady and took assurance for good behaviour. That, despite that the treatment with Smt. Gaindi did not improve. Attention of the witness was drawn to the omission of these facts in the information Ex.P. 8 lodged by him and the only explanation given by him was that he had stated so and could not say why it does not fine place therein. 14. It is partinent to note that Ex. P.8 is a written report filed by the witness and, therefore, the criticism cannot be levelled against the police authorities not to mention what the witness wanted. Ex.D.6 is the police statement of the witness, recorded on February 16, 1980, three days after the lodging of the first information report. In that report the allegation about the ill-treatment by the in-laws of Smt Gaindi on the question of dowry does not find place, rather at portion A to B it has been stated by the witness that he does not know why the in-laws of his sister Smt Gaindi killed her and that they were not inimical to Smt. Gaindi nor were the relations strained. The witness stated that he had not state so. In this view of the matter there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the story about ill-treatment on the question of dowry was not the initial case of the prosecution and was developed later on. 15. The witness stated that he had not state so. In this view of the matter there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the story about ill-treatment on the question of dowry was not the initial case of the prosecution and was developed later on. 15. The other two witnesses examined by the prosecution on this point are Ram Sahai (P.W.3) real brother of Smt Gaindi and Prabhati Lal (P.W 6) her distant cousin. 16. Prabhati Lal (P.W. 6) has stated that Smt. Gaindi used to be ill- treated by her husband. That, they were not providing her food and clothes, used to give her a beating, and were forcing her to illegal acts.According to the witness at the instance of Sujaram a few person- assembled and called the husband and the in-laws of Smt. Gaindi.The witness stated there were marks of heating on the body of Smt. Gaindi and marks of dragging on her buttocks.The witness further stated that Sedu Ram, Har Sahai, Suwa Lal, Bhagirath, Kajod and other persons admitted their guilt and promised not to repeat the same in future. According to the witness this occurrence related to the time when Smt. Gaindi had not delivered a child. That, thereafter Smt. Gaindi was brought to Chomu. In his cross-examination attention of the witness was drawn to the omission of Sedu Ram, Har Sahai, Suwalal, Bhagirath and Kajod begging pardon at the instance of the villagers assembled in connection with the alleged beating given to Smt. Gaindi and the witness could not explain it. He admitted that in Ex D.5, he has not stated about any injury having been sustained by Smt. Gaindi. He also admitted that it was at the instance of Suja Ram that he was stating that Smt. Gaindi was not provided with food and clothes by her in-laws. The witness stated about his going to Samod on hearing about the death of Smt Gaindi and her child but could not tell the name of any of her relatives who had I gone there. No reliance can be placed on this type of witness who admits to have derived information about the ill-treatment from a third person and did I not state the fact in the police statement. No reliance can be placed on this type of witness who admits to have derived information about the ill-treatment from a third person and did I not state the fact in the police statement. The learned counsel for the appellants has therefore, rightly argued that the statement of the witness in the court was an improvement to his initial version. 17. Another witness examined by the prosecution on the point is Ram Sahai (P.W.3), the real brother of Smt Gaindi. He has stated about his accompanying his sister Smt Gaindi and her child on February 12,1980 from Chomu to Samod. Har Sahai is stated to be with them. According to witness he left Smt Gaindi, her husband and child at their house at Samod and returned.At that time Har Sahai, Badri Sedu and mother-in-law of Smt. Gaindi and other Persons were there. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that they had sent Smt. Gaindi with Harsahai happily. Harsahai was given the required honour of a son-in-law. He also admitted that nobody quarrelled with him at the house of Smt Gaindi's father-in-law, rather they had talked with him affectionately.The witness has not stated about any ill-treatment to his sister prior to the occurrence nor does he state about any assemblage of people for intervening in the affairs of Smt. Gaindi and her in-laws. Ram Sahai (P.W.3) is a grown up boy of sixteen years and had there been any problem with his sister, there was no reason for him not to narrate it. He was in a better position to know about the condition of his sister than Prabhatilal. In these circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty ti at relations between Smt Gaindi and her-in-laws were not cordial or that she was put to torture prior to her delivering the child. 18. Ramdhan (P.W.1.) Bhagwan Sahar son of Prabhat (P.W.12.) are the witnesses to the occurrence at the house of Sedu Ram i.e. about the death of the mother and the child. Ram Dhan has claimed to reach the house of Sedu Ram at about 6.00 p.m. and heard the family members asking Smt. Gaindi to go away from there and the latter insisting upon staying there. He further stated about Smt. Phooli catching hold of the hands of Smt. Gaindi and Smt. Soni snatching the child and throwing it away on the ground resulting in its death. He further stated about Smt. Phooli catching hold of the hands of Smt. Gaindi and Smt. Soni snatching the child and throwing it away on the ground resulting in its death. He further stated about the appellants and others taking Smt. Gaindi inside and giving her beating The learned trial Judge has not placed reliance on the statement of this witness and, in our opinion, rightly to because his version at the Court is in utter contradiction to the version before the police. In his police statement Ex. D.1, Ramdhan (P.W. 1) hat claimed to have witnessed the appellants and the co-accused taking the dead bodies of Smt. Gaindi and her child towards the well and throwing them inside. He has not stated there anything about his presence at the house when the murders are said to have taken place. In the deposition at the trial the witness changed the version altogether and claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence at the house instead of the second incident relating to the dead bodies being taken to the well. 19. The prosecution case about the beating given at the house of Sedu Ram therefore, rests on the solitary testimony of Bhagwan Sahai (P.W 12). The witness stated about his going towards the dispensary at about 6.00 p.m. on February 12,1980. In the way fell the house of Sedu Mali. Sedu Ram Harsahai, Smt. Phooli and Smt. Soni pushing out Smt. Gaindi were insisting seduram her to return to her father's house. Smt. Gaindi was insisting upon staying there. The witness deposed that he and Ramdhan reached there and asked them as to where shall she go in the night. That, thereupon those people pushed Smt Gaindi inside the house.He and Ram Dhan also went inside the house. Smt. Gaindi having the child in her lap. Smt. Phooli caught hold the hands of Smt. Gaindi and Smt. Soni snatched the child, and threw it in the court-yard. The child died. Smt. Gaindi raised a cry.When Ramdhan and the witness wanted to go towards the child, they were stopped and asked to go away from there. Meanwhile Sualal, Hanuman, Prabhat, Gyarsilal, Kajod, Bhagirath and Bhura also reached there armed with axe and lathis. The child died. Smt. Gaindi raised a cry.When Ramdhan and the witness wanted to go towards the child, they were stopped and asked to go away from there. Meanwhile Sualal, Hanuman, Prabhat, Gyarsilal, Kajod, Bhagirath and Bhura also reached there armed with axe and lathis. Sedu Ram, and Bhagirath dragged Smt. Gaindi inside the room and all of them started beating her.The witness stated that he was warned to go away if he had any love for his life and Smt.Soni and Smt. Phooli pushed the witness out and closed the gate. The witness stated that he there after went to the police out-post Samod and informed S.I. Manprakash about the murders of the woman and the child. Manprakash told him that as staff was not available there, he was sending information at the police station. 20. When the prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony of a single witness, courts are to ascertain whether the witness is of such sterling worth that conviction can safely be based on his uncorroborated evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants stressed that the evidence of this solitary witness Bhagwan Sahai (P.W.12) stands shattered in his cross-examination.He has given inconsistent statement throughout and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The learned counsel stressed upon the principle of law that corroboration is required before passing conviction on the testimony of a single witness. 21. In order to properly appreciate the evidence of Bhagwan Sahai (P.W.12) it would be necessary to examine the whole of the statement of the witness to conclude whether his narration in the examination-in-chief is worth reliance or not. 22. Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 12) has stated about Doonga Jat meeting him two or three minutes prior to his reaching the house of Seduram. Doonga Jat had been examined by the prosecution as another witness to the occurrence but he did not support its case and was disowned by the prosecution. Bhagwan Sahai has stated that the beating of Smt. Gaindi had taken place in the room and he did not go inside the room. The witness denied to have seen 'pharshi' with any of the assailants. His attention was drawn to his police statement Ex D. 9 where he has stated about the beating being given with 'pharshi'. The witness stated that he did not state so there. The witness denied to have seen 'pharshi' with any of the assailants. His attention was drawn to his police statement Ex D. 9 where he has stated about the beating being given with 'pharshi'. The witness stated that he did not state so there. Attention of the witness was drawn to portion A to B of his police statement Ex D. 9, where he has only expressed suspicion about the in-laws of Smt. Gaindi committing her murder and throwing her in the well. The witness at the trial admitted that the accused had not hurled abuses to him His attention was drawn to portion C to D of his police statement, Ex D. 9 where he has stated that he did not enter the house because those people were hurling abuses and that he went away from there. The witness stated that police might have written so of its own accord. Attention of the witness was also drawn to the ommission of the names of Har Sahai, Phooli, Suwa Lal, Gyarsa, Bhoora, Prabhat, Hanuman, Bhagirath and Kajod in his police statement. He could not explain it. His attention is also drawn to the omission in Police Statement about Smt Gaindi being given beating with lathi and the axe. The witness could not explain it. Similarly presence of Ram Dhan at the house of Seduram and his having a talk with the accused as stated by the witness in the Court does not find place in Ex. D. 9 and the witness could not say as to why it was so.The important part of the prosecution case regarding the child of Smt Gaindi being snatched from her lap by Smt. Soni and thrown on the ground and dying there does not find place in his police statement Ex. D 9. His attention being drawn to this important omission, he could not give any reason. The fact of Smt. Gaindi being taken inside the room and Sualal asking the witness to go away from there if he has any love for his life and Smt. Soni and Smt Phooli pushing the witness out do not find place in his police statement Ex. D. 9. The witness could not explain it. The fact of Smt. Gaindi being taken inside the room and Sualal asking the witness to go away from there if he has any love for his life and Smt. Soni and Smt Phooli pushing the witness out do not find place in his police statement Ex. D. 9. The witness could not explain it. Omission of important facts in the police statement, specially the fact of the child being snatched and thrown in the court-yard resulting in its death, throws doubt on the truthfulness of the statement of the witness at the trial. This is all the more so in view of unnatural conduct of the witness subsequent to the occurrence.This witness has stated about informing Manprakash at police out-post Samod immediately after the occurrence and the latter telling him that he would inform at the Police Station as stall was not available with him at the night, Mukand Singh (P.W. 13), In-charge of the Police Station, Chomu has stated Manprakash A.S.I. was at police station Chomu on February 12, 1980 in the evening and was with him till the morning of February 13, 1980. This falsifies the statement of the witness Bhagwan Sahai that he had informed Manprakash at the out-post. In such circumstances, the conduct of the witness in not informing anybody till February 13,1980 throws doubt on his being the eye-witness of the occurrence, Mukandsingh has stated that Bhagwan Sahai, Ram war, Ramdhan and Pushkhar did not tell him at the time of the preparation of the panchayatnamas that they were eye-witnesses to the occurrence Bhagwan Sahai (P.W.10) motbir to the panchayatramas of the dead bodies has stated about the presence of Ram Sahai, Rameshwar, Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 12) and Suja Ram at that time. He further stated that Bhagwan Sahai son of Prabhat (P.W. 12), Rameshwar and Ramdhan did not tell the police that they have seen the occurrence & that they did not tell the name of the accused. On the other hand Bhagwan Sahai has stated that on February 13, 1980, he had told the Station House Officer Mukand Singh at 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. about the occurrence. The fact of the witness telling of Suja Ram and Mukand Singh stands falsified by the statement and conduct of Suja Ram which we would discuss in detail at appropriate place. The fact of the witness telling of Suja Ram and Mukand Singh stands falsified by the statement and conduct of Suja Ram which we would discuss in detail at appropriate place. Suffice it to state for the present that had the witness informed the police or Suja Ram about the appellants and the co-accused committing the crime there could be no reason for Suja Ram for not mentioning all the names in the report Ex D. 8 and the police filing challan only against four persons. It is also to be noted that Suja Ram has expressed only suspicion about the alleged murder of his cousin. Had he been informed by the eye-witness, he would have surely informed the police about the same. 23. From the above discussion of the statement of Bhagwan Sahai (P.W.12) we do not feel persuaded to place absolute reliance on what he has stated. In view of he serious. infirmities, the evidence of this only witness to the alleged occurrence at the house of Sedu Ram suffers, from there can be no hesitation in rejecting his evidence. It is only in cases where the evidence given by the witness is partly reliable that independent corroberation may lend support to it but in the case like the present one where Bhagwan Sahai (P W.12) has changed his version on material points and omitted to state important facts in his police statement, he cannot be said to be a partly reliable witness and as such even corroboration (though there is none in the present case) would not have cured his defective testimony.This being the position, there remains no evidence regarding the alleged incident at the house of Sedu Ram. 24. The second part of the incident relates to the taking of the dead bodies to the well and being dropped therein. Rameshwar (P W.2 and Pushkar (P.W.11) are the two witnesses examined by the Prosecution in this connection. 25. According to Rameshwar (P.W.2) on February 12, 1980, at about 8.00 p.m. while he was coming from Mahar to Samoa, he saw the appellants and the co-accused going towards the well.The dead body of Smt. Gaindi was on the back of Badri and Smt. Phooli was carrying the child of Smt Gaindi.The witness enquired as to where they were taking them. At this Badri, Bhagirath, Suwalal, and Kajod directed him to go away to his house. At this Badri, Bhagirath, Suwalal, and Kajod directed him to go away to his house. That, he had seen all those persons going towards the gate of the well. Then Bhagirath took the dead body of Smt. Gaindi on his back from that of Badri. The child was taken by Smt. Soni in her lap.The witness thereafter went to his house and went to sleep. There being hearing of his case in the Court next day, he went there. For the reasons discussed hereinafter we have come to the conclusion that this witness does not inspire confidence. 26. The learned Judge has made certain observations while recording the statement of the witness. Alter the witness stating a few sentences, the learned Judge observed that the witness was giving the statement fluently. After a few ,ententes thereafter, there is again a note appended by the learned Judge that it so appears that the witness has come after mugging up the statement. In cross-examination the witness stated that he could not say whether it was dark or moon-lit night. The witness stated the distance between Samod and Mahar to be one and half a mile and expressed his ignorance about furlong. Again there is a note appended by the learned trial Judge to the effect that the witness was trying to think and was trying to avoid the replies to the questions to put him.Then there is a note that the witness was being asked repeatedly to point out the distance in 'pauandas' as he has shown the distance in 'pauandas' above. When the trial Judge makes these observations about the demnenour of the appearing before him it helps the appellate Court to judge the veracity of the witness and to find out whether the statement given by him at the trial was a spontaneous re-production of what he had actually seen or known or he was making delibrate effort to conceal real facts or narrate what was not true. 27. Now, we would refer to the inconsistencies in the Police Statement of the witness Ex.D. 4 and his deposition at the trial and also the improbable facts appearing in his evidence. 27. Now, we would refer to the inconsistencies in the Police Statement of the witness Ex.D. 4 and his deposition at the trial and also the improbable facts appearing in his evidence. Whereas in the examination-in-chief, he has stated about the dead body of Smt. Gaindi being on the back of Badri and then being taken away by Bhagirath and that of the child being at first with Smt. Phooli and then being taken away by Smt. Soni, in cross-examination he has stated hat when he inquired of as to who the lady was, the accused threatened him and he could not identify whether she was Smt. Gaindi or not. That, it was only on the next day when the dead body was taken out, that he came to know in the evening that she was Smt. Gaindi. The witness denied the suggestion that he was at a distance of 500 ft. When he heard the sound (dhamaka). His attention was drawn to his police statement Ex.D. 3 where at portion A to B he has stated about his going away 500 ft. a head and then hearing the sound (damaka) but he did not return to find cut, thinking that how he was concerned and went away to his house. The witness denied to have stated so before the police and deposed that his statement before the Munsif Magistrate was correct. That the police had only asked his name and address and discharged him. His attention was drawn to his statement in the Court of Munsif, Magistrate Ex-D.4 recorded in the inquiy on the complaint of Suja Ram on May 6, 1980, wherein he has not stated about the police discharging him only after asking his name & address. The only reason given by the witness was that he was not so asked in the Court. The witness stated that as the statement was not at all recorded by the police, there was no question of his stating the names of Smt. Phooli, Suwa Lal, Gyarsa, Prabbat, Hanuman; Bhagirath and Kajod. He admitted that he did not face any harsh treatment at the hands of the police nor was the police inimical to him. According to the witness four or five days after the incident, police asked him his name and address. He admitted that he did not face any harsh treatment at the hands of the police nor was the police inimical to him. According to the witness four or five days after the incident, police asked him his name and address. The witness stated that he had narrated the occurrence before the police but the police told him that they will look to their business, he may go and, therefore, he went away to Jaipur. The witness admitted not to have told any body at Jaipur that Smt. Gaindi hid been killed like that. According to the witness he has told this fact for the first time to the police. The witness expressed his ignorance about the police coming to the village on second or third day of the occurrence. His attention was drawn to the omission in his police statement Ex D. 3 regarding the child being with the lady and the witness stated that as his statement was not recorded by the police, there was no question of his stating there. Similar is the answer of the witness about Bhagirath taking the dead body of Smt. Gaindi from the back of Badri and Smt. Soni taking the child, from Smt Phooli. As observed earlier Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 10), motbir of the panchayatnama of the dead bodies has stated about Rameshwar (P.W. 2) being present at the time and his not stating to the police that he had seen the incident. Mukand Singh (P.W. 13) Investigation Officer also states that Bhagwan Sahsi, Rameshwar Ramdhan and Pushkar witnesses did no' tell him at the time of preparing the panchayatnama that they were witnesses to the occurrence. This falsifies the statement of Rameshwar that he had gone away on the next day of the occurrence. If the witness was present on the next day then his not being examined for four or five days casts doubt on what he states. If it is true that the police only noted he name and address of this witness and did not record his statement, then his statement during the inquiry proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by Suja Ram about two months after the occurrence cannot be given any weight. For all these reasons no reliance can be placed on the statement of Rameshwar. 28. For all these reasons no reliance can be placed on the statement of Rameshwar. 28. The only witness that now remains for the second incident of the bodies being taken to the well and being thrown in it is Pushkar (P.W 11). 29. According to Pushkar at about 8.00 p.m. he was coming from 'Dhoti Aamlod' to Samod. He saw seven or eight persons carrying a man on their back and two ladies accompanying them. All of them were going from village Samod towards 'naya kuwa'. The witness at the first instance stated that he does not know whether he was a man or a woman as the same was being taken covered. In the next breath he stated that those person were carrying the woman. That on his interrogation someone from amongst them informed that somebody is ill and was being taken. The witness expressed his ignorance about their names and addresses and stated that he knew them by faces. A note has been appended to the effect that the witness went near the dock and touching Badri with his hands stated that this man was a carrying that lady on his back and live or seven persons were accompanying, whom he does not know. It is of considerable importance that though the witness did not know those persons beforehand still no identification parade was held to test whether he was able to identify any one of the miscreants or not. The witness stated that he had told all the facts which he was stating at the trial to the police. On being asked as to whether he had told the fact of the lady being carried for the first time to the Police and the witness replied that he did not know how to answer the question. There is a note to the effect that he was made to understand the question and stated that be had stated so before the police for the first time and did not tell any body else. The witness in the next breath stated that police had written his statement as it liked and not what he stated. That, the police did not read over the statement to him. The witness next stated that it was at that very time that he came to know that the statement was not recorded as he was narrating. The witness in the next breath stated that police had written his statement as it liked and not what he stated. That, the police did not read over the statement to him. The witness next stated that it was at that very time that he came to know that the statement was not recorded as he was narrating. The witness stated that the police gave a threat to him. He further stated that eight or ten days after the incident his statement was recorded by the police.There is no explanation for this delay in recording the statement of this eye-witness. Besides the slackness of police in examining the important eye-witness to the occurrence the conduct of the witness itself raises suspicion about the truth of his narration. If the witness was not examined by the police for eight or ten days & as he stated that the for the first time, told the facts to the police & to none else prior to that, his conduct was most unnatural. A person having seen a crime being committed keeping quiet for eight or ten days cannot be said to he behaving as a prudent man would do so in natural course of events. Attention of the witness was drawn to his police statement Ex D.7 where he had stated about carrying the dead body of Smt. Gaindi by three or four persons on their backs and the witness replied that it has wrongly mentioned and that he had stated about eight or ten persons. The witness also could not give any explanation for the omission regarding the two ladies accompanying those persons and on his enquiry being informed that some one was ill. Similarly he could not give any explanation for he omitting to state there that he could identify by face the person who was carrying the lady. The bald statement of the witness that police did not write what he had stated cannot be considered to be a plausible explanation for the material omissions and contradictions in his statement. 30. The reliability of a witness is to be judged from the over all picture depicted by him. Pushkar P.W.11.) has not impressed us as a witness of truth and, therefore, we are constrained to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Judge that from the evidence, of this witness, the appellants may by held guilty of any offence. 30. The reliability of a witness is to be judged from the over all picture depicted by him. Pushkar P.W.11.) has not impressed us as a witness of truth and, therefore, we are constrained to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Judge that from the evidence, of this witness, the appellants may by held guilty of any offence. 31. Suja Ram is an important witness in the case because he happens to be the cousin of Smt. Gaindi. He is the informant in the case and lodged Ex P. 8 on February 13, 1980 and the prosecution machinery is said to have been set to motion in pursuance of that information. It was on the complaint lodged by Suja Ram on April 19, 1980 that cognizance was taken by the Court against the eight accused, who have been acquitted by the trial Court. We have already discussed the evidence of Suja Ram concerning the alleged motive for the commission of the crime, and for the reasons stated earlier disbelieved him. This is not in dispute that none of the witnesses claiming to be the eye-witnesses to the incident had informed Suja Ram or any other member of the family of Smt. Gaindi's father. Suja Ram had reached the village on February 13, 1980 on hearing about Smt Gaindi's death. He enquired of Sedu Ram had and Smt. Soni as to what had happened and they replied lint they did not know. The witness admitted that his version was reduceed into writing by the police and his thumb impression was taken According to the witness police directed him not to report anywhere else and threatened that in case he did so, he would be arrested.In the next breath, the witness stated that neither he had lodged a written report nor an oral one before the police.When Ex P. 8 was read over to the witness, he admitted that he had reported like that and it was in his presence that Bhagwan Sahai had told that Smt. Gaindi was murdered and thrown in the well. Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 12) has stated that it was not at the time of the arrival of the police rather at three or four p.m. that he had given the statement. Bhagwan Sahai (P.W. 12) has stated that it was not at the time of the arrival of the police rather at three or four p.m. that he had given the statement. Mukand Singh (P.W. 13), the Station House Officer, has categorically stated that Bhagwan Sahai and others did not tell him that they knew anything about the occurrence or were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Suja Ram admitted that he had not mentioned the name of any accused in the report. He has denied to have given any statement before the police. Ex D. 6 is his statement recorded by the police on February 16, 1980. Attention of the witness was drawn to it and he admitted to have given that statement. He could not explain the reason of his not stating in Ex. P. 8 the information, and Ex.D. 6 his police statement about the in-laws of Smt Gaindi being annoyed on account of her not bringing dowry Ex.D. 6 contains at portion A to B that the witness does not know why those people had killed Smt. Gaindi and that there was no enmity or strained relations between Smt. Gaindi and her in-laws, nor were they inimical to the witness.Attention of Suja Ram having been drawn to that part of the statement, he denied to have stated so. Similarly, he could not give proper answer for the omission in Ex P. 6 about Bhagwan Sahai, Rameshwar and Ramdhan telling him that they had seen the incident. The witness admitted that nine or ten days ofter the incident only four accused were arrested and he did not complain to any body for that. Had Suja Ram the knowledge of twelve persons being involved in the commission of the crime he, in the natural course of events, should have approached the Station House Officer or the higher authorities. This shows that he had no knowledge about any body being eye witness to the incident and it was only on suspicion that four family members i.e. husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Smt. Gaindi were arrested by the police. The complaint Ex.P. 9 was lodged in the Court on April 19, 1980 against twelve persons. The witness stated that he does not know what case was instituted by him a' Chomu and then stated that the counsel had written what he had told. The complaint Ex.P. 9 was lodged in the Court on April 19, 1980 against twelve persons. The witness stated that he does not know what case was instituted by him a' Chomu and then stated that the counsel had written what he had told. The witness at the trial had expressed his ignorance about Bhahwan Sahai, Rameshwar and Ramdhan being directed not to narrate the incident to any body, on the other hand in Ex. P 9 the complaint, he has stated so and the witness told that it was correct. In the statement at the trial the witness denied the fact that Rameshwar, Ramdhan and Bhagwan Sahai informed him that the dead bodies were thrown in the well after the dark had set in whereas it has been so written at portion C to D in the Ex. P 9 & the explanation given by the witness is that he being illiterate does not understand in darkness and moon-light.The witness admitted in the court that police had gone to the house of Smt. Soni and had prepared the site plan of he house whereas in Ex.P. 9 at portion E to F it is mentioned that police neither prepared the site plan of the place where the heating was given nor correctly recorded the statement of the witness. On being questioned about this discrepancy the witness only stated that as he is illiterate, he cannot say whether it was so stated by mistake or otherwise.Similarly, in Ex.P. 9 there is allegation at portion G to F that the police was not getting the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The witness stated that if it is so, it might be correct but he had not stated about 164 Cr.P.C. statement rather had only stated that Smt. Gaindi and her child had been killed.When the witness has given three different versions in Ex.P. 8 the information, Ex.D 6 the police statement and Ex P 9 the complaint lodged in the court and could not satisfactorily explain the discrepancies, he does not deserve any consideration. Apart from it, his statement about his getting information about the incident from the witnesses, is not supported by those witnesses and the investigating officer. 32. Apart from it, his statement about his getting information about the incident from the witnesses, is not supported by those witnesses and the investigating officer. 32. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that prosecution could neither substantiate by cogent convincing evidence the allegations of criminal conspiracy nor forming of unlawful assembly nor any of the appellants in pursuance of any common object committing the murder of Smt. Gaindi or her child or dropping he dead bodies into the well to screen the offence or the offenders.Thus no offence is made out against any of the appellants. 33. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants viz. Sedu Ram, Harsahai and Badri are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are in Jail.They shall be set forth to liberty at once if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******