JUDGMENT 1. - Bholaram appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7th August, 1976, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby, he has been found guilty under Section 302, IPC. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Gangaram, who is the resident of Dhani Maleshia Tan Tanija, was working in KCP in Erection Section, as a Helper. On 28th May, 1975, he was returning from his duty at about 4 PM. When he reached his Dhani and came near Johad at about 6-30 PM, he heard a hue and cry from the house of Sheonarain, son of Ramsahai Gujar, Hearing this cry, he went to the house of Sheonarain, where Banwari, Chiranji, Gokal etc. residents of Dhani, were present there. Those persons told him that' Bholaram son of Jhabarram had murdered Sheonarain, by inflicting blows of Chhura (knife). The dead body of Sheonarain was covered with a piece of cloth. When the said cloth was removed, he found a blow on the chest of Sheonarain, from which, blood was coming out. He called Sheonarain, but found him dead He inquirer from the persons present , as to whether any report had been lodged at the police station. They replied that no report had been filed. It is alleged that a dispute was going on in between Bholaram and Palaram with regard to some land. Sheonarain was towards the side of Palaram and on account of this enmity, Bholaram had murdered Sheonarain. Gangaram came to Police Station-Khetri at about 10-30 PM on that very day and lodged a report, which is Ex. P. 1. When the said report was lodged, the SHO in charge of Police Station-Khetri, was out of Khetri, on some Government duty. So, the matter was reported by the ASI to Deputy Superintendent of Police, as it was a special report case. Shri Hanumanaram, SHO, Buhana, happened to be there on that day. So, is the direction of the Deputy Suparintendent of Police, investigation of this case was given to Hanumanaram. After recording the report, Hanumanaram came to the Dhani on the same tight, i.e. on 28th May, 1975, and there he found the deadbody of Sheonarain lying on a Charpoy (cot). He reached the spot at about 1 O'Clock in the night intervening 28th and 29th May, 1975. After recording the report, Hanumanaram came to the Dhani on the same tight, i.e. on 28th May, 1975, and there he found the deadbody of Sheonarain lying on a Charpoy (cot). He reached the spot at about 1 O'Clock in the night intervening 28th and 29th May, 1975. As it was night time, and there was no arrangement for any light, he postponed the further proceedings of the investigation till the next morning. On the morning of 29th May, 1975, he prepared a Panchnama of the dead body of Sheonarain, which is Ex. P. 4. There was an injury at the chest of Sheonarain, and he has mention this injury in the said Panchnama. He then prepared a site-plan Ex P. 5 : and an inspection memo of the dead body, Ex. P. 6. One Kamiz (shirt), one safa and one pair of shoes of deceased Sheonarain were taken into possession by him vide memo Ex. P. 7. From the spot, blood it and earth and plain earth were taken into possession vide memo-Ex. P. 8 and `Ex. P. 9. He sent a letter for postmortem examination of the dead body, to the 'Medical Officer, which is Ex. P. 10. This letter was received by the doctor on 29th May, 1975. The Medical Officer came to the spot to conduct the postmortem 'examination of the deadbody. After the said examination, the dead body was handed over to the police vide memo Ex. P. 11, and later on the same was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. P. 12. On 29th May, 1975. accused Bholaram was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P. 13. Thereafter, the investigation of , the case was handed over to Ujagarsingh, SHO. On 4th June, 1975, while in police custody, accused Bholaram gave information to get recovered one Gupti from the Kothi where he had kept it. This information was reduced into writing which is Ex. P. 2. On the basis of this information and at the instance of accused Bholaram, the Gupti was recovered from the Kothi of the Dhani of accused Bholaram, on 5th June, 1975, vide memo Ex. P. 3. The said Gupti is article-1. This information was reduced into writing which is Ex. P. 2. On the basis of this information and at the instance of accused Bholaram, the Gupti was recovered from the Kothi of the Dhani of accused Bholaram, on 5th June, 1975, vide memo Ex. P. 3. The said Gupti is article-1. Nathusingh AS who has been examined by the prosecution as PW 8, has proved that on 28th May, I 1975 Gangaram lodged an oral report at the police station, which he reduced into writing and that report is Ex. P. 1. As it was a special report case, he brought this matter to the notice of the C. O who handed over the investigation of the case to Hanumanaram SHO, Bhana, who happened to be at Khetri at that time Thus, after usual investigation, the police submitted a challan in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, who committed the accused for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jhunujhunu. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, framed charge and against accused Bholaram under Section 302, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The contention of the accused is that the whole case has been falsely cooked up against him and on account of enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this murder case. 4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined ten witnesses in all. Gokul PW 1; Mst. Ladodi PW 2; Gangaram PW 3; and Chiranjilal PW 5 are said lobe the eye witnesses in this case. Ujagarsingh PW 6; Nathusingh PW 8; and Hanumanaram PW 9 are the police officers, and, Harmohcndra singh PW 10 is the I Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Khetri, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Sheonarain. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced before him, by both the parties, held accused Bholaram guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPO, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life as mentioned above. 6. The learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellant, I has contended that the learned trial judge has seriously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence of interested, tainted and relative witnesses. He further I argued that the alleged murder took place on 28th May, 1975, though, the prosecution documents, i. e., Ex-P. 4 and Ex. 6. The learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellant, I has contended that the learned trial judge has seriously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence of interested, tainted and relative witnesses. He further I argued that the alleged murder took place on 28th May, 1975, though, the prosecution documents, i. e., Ex-P. 4 and Ex. 16 clearly show that the death of Sheonarain had taken place on 27th May, 1975, and subsequently, they made improvement in the prosecution case by showing that the murder had taken place on 28th May, 1975 Jr According to him as there was no actual eye-witness in this case about the murder of Sheonarain, the whole case was fabricated against the accused appellant who bad some enmity with the deceased. As the death of the deceased had taken place on 27th May, 1975, the whole prosecution case falls on the ground and the accused K appellant is entitled to acquittal. It was also argued that the witnesses cannot be truthful and reliable witnesses, and therefore, their evidence is untrustworthy and unnatural. He has also argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned amicus curiae has also contended that even if it is admitted that the alleged, murder took place on 28th May, 1975 at about 6 P.M. still, the opinion of the doctor is contrary to what the prosecution alleges. Th e doctor has stated that the deceased died 24 hours before the postmortem examination done by him, which according to the prosecution, took place at about 8 30 AM on 29th May, 1975. This time does not tally the prosecution case that the deceased was murdered on 28th May, 1975, at about 6 Pvl. So, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected on this ground. It was also argued that the name of Mst. Ladodi has J not been mentioned in the FIR and so, her presence at the spot was also doubtful, and that due to enmity between the accused and the deceased, this case has been fabricated. He has also challenged the recovery of the Gupti. 7. In reply to the arguments of learned amicus curiae, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and has argued that the difference of date mentioned in documents Ex. P. 4 and Ex. He has also challenged the recovery of the Gupti. 7. In reply to the arguments of learned amicus curiae, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and has argued that the difference of date mentioned in documents Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 16, has been explained by the doctor and the investigating officer, and it is by mistake or slip of pen that a wrong date has been mentioned in these documents, and actually, the murder took place on 28th May, 1975, at about 6 PM, and the post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 29th May, 1975. He has disagreed that the murder took place on 27th May, 1975 as argued by the learned amicus curiae, and argued that it is not correct to say that nobody knows as to who has murdered Sheonarain, and that, the eye-witnesses are reliable and I truthful witnesses and the case is fully established against the accused appellant. 8. The foremost point to be considered in this case, is, whether the death I of Sheonarain was homicidal or not. The learned amicus curiae has not disputed 1 this fact. He has not at all argued on this aspect. The learned Sessions Judge in " his judgment, has discussed this point in detail, and has held that the death of Sheonarain was homicidal in nature. We have also independently perused the statement of the Medical Officer, Dr. Harmohendra Singh, PW 10. He has conducted the postmortem examination on the deadbody of Sheonarain and found the following external injuries on his person : 1. There was postmortem staining and blood mixed forth was coming out from the right nose and mouth. Clotted blood was present on the chest wall. 2. There was punctured wound 3/4" X X 3" on the front just lateral to the sternum at the external angle. Both ends were tapering." On opening of the body, the doctor found the following injuries : 1. "The clotted blood was present on the muscles of the chest from first intercostal space to fourth intercostal space. There was a cut over the sternum on the right side of at the level of second rib, cutting intercostal muscles, causing the wound of 1/2" X 1/4". 2. Right pleura was cut corresponding to above injury. 3. Right Bronchus was cut at the anterior aspect. There was a cut over the sternum on the right side of at the level of second rib, cutting intercostal muscles, causing the wound of 1/2" X 1/4". 2. Right pleura was cut corresponding to above injury. 3. Right Bronchus was cut at the anterior aspect. The upper and middle lob of the right lung were lacerated. 4. Pericardium was cut over the superior venacava laterally pericardial fluid was mixed with blood. 5. Superior venacava was cut at the lateral aspect just above the right auricle. 6. Pharynx was full of blood with forth." In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was injury to vital organs like superior venacava and lungs leading to collapse and acute circulatory and respiratory failures. All the injuries according to the said doctor, were ante-mortem in nature and the internal injury was the result of external injury. According to him, these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The postmortem report is Ex. P. 16. Thus, from the statement of the doctor, it is clear that Sheonarain died on account of injuries mentioned in the postmortem report, Ex. P. 16. and these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As such, the death of Sheonarain was homicidal in nature, and we hold so accordingly. 9. The learned amicus curiae has then argued that Gangaram lodged the report at Police Station-Khetri, on 28th May, 1975 at about 10-30 PM, which is Ex. P. 1. The said report was sent to the concerned Magistrate on 31st May, 1975, i.e., on the third day after the lodging of the report. He argued that the delay in sending the said report to the concerned Magistrate, creates doubt in the whole prosecution story. It was also argued that when the FIR Ex. P. 1 was received by the Magistrate, he put a note on the said FIR, which reads as under : "FIR 28&5&75 dks pkd gqbZ tks 31-5-75 dks U;k;ky; esa 11-30 A.M. ij izkIr gqbZ gSA F.I.R. bruh delay D;ksa Hksth xbZ gS Li"Vhdj.k lfgr izLrqr gksA " It was argued that the prosecution has not explained the delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor could not reply to this argument at all During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor was asked to explain this delay very specifically, and he was also asked as to why no action had been taken by the police authorities with regard to this delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate, but, we are constrained to write that no reply was given to this query by the learned Public Prosecutor. Actually, he had no say or answer to the query as to why the FIR was sent with delay. The police station is at Khetri. The seat of the Magistrate is at Khetri and it is said that the said police station and the court of the Magistrate is very near to each other. In spite of this fact, the FIR was delivered to the concerned Magistrate alter two days, is such a fact which could not be explained by the learned Public Prosecutor. We cannot imagine even that the FIR could not be sent on 29th May, 1975, to the court concerned, which situates in the same vicinity and in the same town. This dearly shows mala fides of the police. When the law requires that the FIR should be sent to the concerned Magistrate forthwith, there is no explanation or reason to keep the said FIR at the police station for two days and transmit it to the concerned Magistrate, who is in the same town and adjacent to the police station, and as no explanation could be given by the learned Public Prosecutor, we also feel that the delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate, is unexplained, and it certainly creates serious doubt in the whole prosecution story specially when the date of murder is disputed. According to the defence, the murder took place on 27th May, 1975, while the FIR is dated 28th May. 1975, and recorded at 10.30 PM. Thus, there is a difference of about 24 hours regarding the time of the alleged murder. In such circumstances, the receipt of the said FIR by the court concerned, is more significant and material one. In the note itself; the Magistrate has asked as to why the FIR was sent with delay and explanation was also asked to be submitted. Thus, there is a difference of about 24 hours regarding the time of the alleged murder. In such circumstances, the receipt of the said FIR by the court concerned, is more significant and material one. In the note itself; the Magistrate has asked as to why the FIR was sent with delay and explanation was also asked to be submitted. In spite of this note by the Magistrate, the police did not care to submit any explanation for this delay. What does it show ? It only means and indicates that some foul play was there as regards the FIR. There is some dispute as to when the murder took place, and that is why the delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate occurred and the police had no explanation for this delay. This contention of the learned amicus curiae is supported by the perusal of the documents, Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 16. Ex. P. 16 is the postmortem report, which was prepared by Dr. Harmohendra Singh PW 10. This report is completely in the handwriting of the said doctor himself. In the said report, Ex. P. 16, the doctor has mentioned the date as 28th May, 1975, is marked as I to J in Ex. P. 16. Then, in the first column of death, the said doctor has written, "At about 6 PM. on 27.5.75", which is marked as C to D in Ex. P. 16. The said doctor in the end, has signed the said postmortem report and he has admitted his signature marked as E to F in Ex. P. 16. after his signature, G to H is the date mentioned by him, which is also admitted and this date has been written as 28th May, 1975. We would discuss in detail about these dates ahead, but suffice to say that this document Ex. P. 16 corroborates and strengthens the arguments of the learned amicus curiae. As such, we feel that there is great force in the arguments advanced by the learned amicus curiae. Certainly, the delay in the circumstances of the case, in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate, creates suspicion in the story of the prosecution, and this delay is certainly fatal to the whole prosecution case. The argument of the learned amicus curiae, has therefore, substance. 10. Certainly, the delay in the circumstances of the case, in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate, creates suspicion in the story of the prosecution, and this delay is certainly fatal to the whole prosecution case. The argument of the learned amicus curiae, has therefore, substance. 10. The learned amicus curiae has then argued that the alleged eye witnesses in this case are, PW 1 Gokul; PW 2 Mst. Ladodi who is the niece of deceased Sheonarain; PW 4 Bhanwari; and PW 5 Chiranjilal. According to him, theve witness es are unreliable witnesses and there are contradiction in their statements, 11. The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, has discussed the evidence of the four alleged eye-witnesses in detail. We have also perused their statements. Gokul PW 1 has stated that a dispute regarding land was going on between Jhabar and Pala. The accused is the son of Jhabar Pala had friendship with him and Sheonarain deceased. As such, Bholaram who is the son of Jhabar, had enmity with them. Gokul has further stated that on near Sheonarain at his house. They both were sleeping the day of occurrence, he was sleeping on different cots. He heard cry of Sheonarain and Mst. Ladodi. At this, he turned his face towards Sheonarain, and saw accused Bholaram having a chhura in his hand full of blood. Bholaram was no the body of Sheonarain having the Chhura in his hand full of blood. As Bholaram told him that he (Bholaram) would see him later, he ran away from the place. Mst. Ladodi has stated that she was having her nephew in her lap, while Sheonarain was sleeping. Accused Bholaram came there and in flicted a blow with a Chhura, at the chest of Sheonarain, Gokul, who was also there, also got up. Bholaram ran towards Gokul and later on he (Bholaram) ran away. Thereafter, Chiranji and Banwari also arrived there. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Chiranji and Banwari arrived at the spot, after Bholaram had inflicted blow with Chhura on Sheonarain. Banwari PW 4 has stated that he was at his house, He saw accused Bholaram coming from his house and going towards the Gwadi of Sheonarain while abusing him. He then went towards the house of Sheonarain, because he apprehended that Bholaram would quarrel there. As soon as he reached there, he saw accused Bholaram inflicting Chhura blow to Sheonarain. Banwari PW 4 has stated that he was at his house, He saw accused Bholaram coming from his house and going towards the Gwadi of Sheonarain while abusing him. He then went towards the house of Sheonarain, because he apprehended that Bholaram would quarrel there. As soon as he reached there, he saw accused Bholaram inflicting Chhura blow to Sheonarain. Sheonarain was sleeping on a cot and Gokul was also sleeping there on another cot near him After inflicting Chhura blow to Sheonarain, accused Bholaram ran away. He wen, to the Gwadi of Sheonarain and saw that blood was coming out from the chest o Sheonarain, who had already died. PW 5 Chiranjilal has also stated that he was coming with his she-buffaloes. He saw Bholaram coming out of his house and going towards the house of Sheonarain. He was having a Chhura in his. hand, Raimti was also going ahead him. Bholaram entered in the house of Sheonarain inflicted Chhura blow at the chest of Sheonarain. Gokul was also sleeping near by on a cot, and Mst. Ladodi was also there. Bholarau after inflicting Chhura blow, ran towards Gokul, who ran away from there. Bholaram then came back and also ran towards him. So he also ran away to his house. After that, he came and saw that his uncle Sheonarain, had injuries on his chest. Thus, from the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that Mst. Ladodi PW 2 is the niece and Chiranjilal PW 5 is the nephew of deceased Sheonarain. So, from the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has tried to establish that Bholaram accused inflicted blow on the chest of deceased Sheonarain, while he was sleeping in his Gwadi. The statements of these four witnesses is consistent, no doubt. The discrepancy pointed out by the learned amicus curiae, is of very minor nature. As such, we see consistency in the statements of these witnesses. But, the point is whether the story put forward by the prosecution through these witnesses, is believable. If the whole case as put forward by the prosecution is beyond suspicion if the date of murder of Sheonarain. As such, we see consistency in the statements of these witnesses. But, the point is whether the story put forward by the prosecution through these witnesses, is believable. If the whole case as put forward by the prosecution is beyond suspicion if the date of murder of Sheonarain. i. e. 28th May, 1975, is correct as alleged by the prosecution, if the investigation carried out by the police authorities does not create any suspicion, then, the statements of these four witnesses, are worth believable, and on the basis of the evidence of these four witnesses, the prosecution can be said to have established its case against the accused appellant. Thus, the main aspect is whether the story as alleged by the prosecution is correct or whether the contention of the learned ainicus curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellant, is correct. It as argued by Mr. Gupta that the murder took place on 27th May, is correct then, certainly a great suspicion the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Hence, the important aspect to be seen is as to the fact when Sheonarain died and when the postmortem examination of his dead body was conducted and whether the story put forward by the prosecution is correct. In this connection, the relevant documents referred to by the learned amicus curiae, are Ex. P. 4, the inquest report made by the police under Section 174, Cr, PC. Ex. P.10 & Ex. P. 15, the letter sent by the SHO, PS khetri to the Medical Officer, Khetri for conducting the postmortem examination of the deadbody of Sbeonorain, Ex. P. 14 is the letter of request by the C. O. Khetri, addressed to the Medical Officer, Khetri, with regard to postmortem examination of the deadbody of Sheonarain, at the spot. Ex. P. 16 is the post-mortem report prepared by the Medical Officer after conducting the postmortem examination. 12. Before discussing these documents be would like to mention here that circle officer has not been produced in evidence by the prosecution. Murder cases which are special report cases, are always reported to the circle officer, by the SHO of the police station. In this case also, as soon as the FIR was lodged, the circle officer was informed about this cases, at his direction, Harmohendra Singh, SH ), Buhana was entrusted to investigate this case, though, he was not posted at Police Station-Khetri. Then, Ex. In this case also, as soon as the FIR was lodged, the circle officer was informed about this cases, at his direction, Harmohendra Singh, SH ), Buhana was entrusted to investigate this case, though, he was not posted at Police Station-Khetri. Then, Ex. P. 14 is the letter written by the circle officer, Khetri to the medical officer, Khetri for conducting the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Sheonarain at the spot. It is also in the evidence that the circle officer was at the spot when the investigation started and when the doctor conducted the postmortem examination on the deadbody. So, the circle officer was also an important witness, particularly, in these circumstances, when it is in dispute as to when Sheonarain was murdered. The date of murder as being 28th May, 1975, is in dispute. Thus, it was more essential to examine the circle officer, Khetri, to explain about the date mentioned in the documents produced by the prosecution itself. But, strange enough that the prosecution has not examined the circle officer, Khetri, in their evidence. The reason was best known to them and we have nothing to say about it. It would have been better if the circle officer would have been examined in this case, so that, some clarification would have been brought by the prosecution as argued by the learned amicus curiae. Apart from this, the original documents Ex. P. 14 was perused by us. At the top of it, where the subject has been mentioned the date has been mentioned as 28th May, 1975. In it, the figure `8'of date `28', creates some doubt. We also perused this figure by magnifying-glass, and find that some overwriting is there on figure `8`. The figure is not in its usual way. It can well be seen that previously figure was written, and thereafter, on this `7' figure, `8' has been made. Then, again in the body of the letter, in the second line, the words, "on 28 5.75, Marked as E to F in Ex. P. 14 have been written in between the two lines. Why these words were written subsequently, could be well explained by the circle officer alone, who has signed the said letter Ex. P. 14. It is clear that the portion E to F in Ex.P. 14, has been written subsequently. P. 14 have been written in between the two lines. Why these words were written subsequently, could be well explained by the circle officer alone, who has signed the said letter Ex. P. 14. It is clear that the portion E to F in Ex.P. 14, has been written subsequently. What was the necessity of writing these words, could be explained only by the person who has signed this letter, and he was the circle officer, Khatri. So, examining the circle officer as a witness in this case, was essential. As nobody has been produced by the prosecution to explain these facts they remain as unexplained and a great suspicion is created in our mind about the letter, Ex. P. 14. On this letter, Ex. P. 14, there is an endorsement marked as A to B, which reads as under. "Regd on 29.5.75"The said endorsement is signed by the medical officer and below his signature, there is a date marked as C to D. With regard to this endorsement A to B, the learned amicus curiae has argued that from the above endorsement A to B, it is clear that the letter was received by the doctor on 29th May, 1975, whils under his signature he has mentioned the date as 27th May, 1975. So, this difference also creates suspicion on the fact as to when this letter Ex. P. 14 was received by the medical officer, Khetri. The circle officer could have explained this fact as to when he sent this letter Ex. P. 14 to the medical officer. The medical officer, Dr. Harmohendra Singh, in his statement, has no doubt, stated that when he received the letter Ex. P. 14, the words E to F were already written therein. Neither he was asked about the date nor he has explained it. However, the date under his signature, can be read as 27th May, 1975 or as 29th May, 1975, and certainly the portion E to F has been inserted later on. This could have been explained if the office-copy of this letter which has been kept in the office of the circle officer, Khetri would have been produced in the court. This could have been explained by the circle officer, also. But, this step has not been taken by the prosecution. So, the doubt is created in our mind. This could have been explained if the office-copy of this letter which has been kept in the office of the circle officer, Khetri would have been produced in the court. This could have been explained by the circle officer, also. But, this step has not been taken by the prosecution. So, the doubt is created in our mind. Similarly, the doubt about the date mentioned in the body of the letter, could have been explained if the officer copy of this letter would have been produced in the court. Thus, the doubt created in this letter remains as it is and unexplained. We also feel as to when this letter Ex. P. 14 was handed over to the medical officer. It is not on the record and no one has stated that Ex P. 14 was delivered to the medical officer either while he was at hospital in Khetri or while he was at his residence in Khetri. Ex. P. 10 aid Ex P. 15 are similar memo given by the SHO Khetri to the medical officer, Khetri for postmortem examination. According to the investigating officer, the letters Ex.P. 10 and Ex. P. 15 were handed over to the medical officer at the spot. Ex. P. 15 is the original letter submitted by the medical officer; and Ex.P. 10 is the carbon-copy of this letter Ex. P. 15. The original memo Ex. P. 15 was produced by Dr. Harmohendra Singh, while Ex. P. 10 was prospected by the Investigating Officer, Hanumanaram, PW 9. We fail to understand why these document in duplicate have been produced and then where was the necessity of producing the document Ex. P. 14, which is also with regard to the same aspect of postmortem examination ? It can be argued that the circle officer Khetri, requested the medical officer to conduct the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sheonarain at the spot, as it was not possible to bring the deadbody to the hospital, Khetri. So, the letter Ex. P. 14 was necessary to be banded over to the medical officer. It can be said that documents Ex.P. 10/15 are the memo for inspection of the deadbody by the SHO, during the investigation. In any way this is strange that Ex. P. 10/15 do not bear signatures of any investigating officer. These documents are unsigned. So, the letter Ex. P. 14 was necessary to be banded over to the medical officer. It can be said that documents Ex.P. 10/15 are the memo for inspection of the deadbody by the SHO, during the investigation. In any way this is strange that Ex. P. 10/15 do not bear signatures of any investigating officer. These documents are unsigned. The investigation was being conducted by Hanumanaram and he submitted this memo to the doctor. Then, why did he not sign this member. The only explanation that may be possible is that by oversight, he failed to sign the document. This explanation is very easy to say, but very difficult to digest. A Police officer of the rank of SHO, who is conducting 3 special report murder case, investigates the case in such a light manner that he did not sign the documents and submitted it to the doctor without signing the said paper. What is the sanctity of such a document which bears no signature of any police officer ? The Circle Officer was also present when the postmortem examination was conducted. It is definite that Ex P. 10/15 were submitted to the Medical Officer when the Circle Officer was also at the spot. He too did not bother whether it bore any signature of any officer or not. What reliance should be placed on such a document? Then, the entire aspect is as to when this document was handed over to the Medical Officer. There is no mention of any date on these documents Ex.P. 10/15. So, it is difficult to say as to when the documents Ex.P. 10/15 were prepared and on which date, it was handed over to the medical officer. No doubt, there is an endorsement on this document by the Medical Officer marked as A to B, which reads as under. "Reed, on 29/5/75 at 8-30 A.M." The said endorsement is signed by the Medical Officer, and under his signature, the date has been mentioned as 29/5/75. The doctor Harmohender Singh, in his statement, has, no doubt stated that he received Ex. P. 15 and the endorsement on it is in his hand and bears bis signature. The date of receipt of this letter is 29th May, 1975 and this has been correctly mentioned by him. He has admitted that Ex.P. 15 does not bear signature of any police A officer. P. 15 and the endorsement on it is in his hand and bears bis signature. The date of receipt of this letter is 29th May, 1975 and this has been correctly mentioned by him. He has admitted that Ex.P. 15 does not bear signature of any police A officer. It does not bear any date written by any police officer. So, the bare statement of the Medical Officer about the receipt of this letter Ex. P. 15 on 29ih May, 1975, is not sufficient to explain this fact and remove the suspicion. We will deal with the statement of the doctor subsequently, which would show that the statement of the doctor is unreliable. As such, a doubt is created in this aspect, and therefore, the argument of the learned amicus curiae in this behalf, has great force and substance. It has not been explained by the learned Public Prosecutor, and we are not satisfied in this regard, 13. Another important aspect which creates doubt is, the postmortem report, Ex. P. 16. The said report is in the handwriting of the doctor, Dr. Harmohender Singh PW 10 himself. He has admitted that the complete document is in his handwriting and bears his signature at mark E to F, and the date under his signature at mark G to H has been written by him. We have examined this document, Ex. P. 16. According to the prosecution case, the murder was committed on 28th May, 1975 at about 6 PM. The postmortem of the deadbody on Sheonarain was conducted by the Medical Officer on 29th May, 1975, at the spot, and the postmortem report was prepared in three sets. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that three copies of postmortem reports are prepared by the doctor. One copy is delivered to the police : one copy is kept in the hospital : and the third copy is sent to the Chief Medical Officer. The document Ex. P. 16 is the copy which was handed over to the police and this has been produced in the court. In this document, in the very beginning, the date at portion marked as I to J, has been mentioned as 28th May, 1975. This date is very clear. There is no overwriting on this date. The document Ex. P. 16 is the copy which was handed over to the police and this has been produced in the court. In this document, in the very beginning, the date at portion marked as I to J, has been mentioned as 28th May, 1975. This date is very clear. There is no overwriting on this date. Then, in the first column of death, the portion C to D has been written as under : "At about 6 PM on 27/5/75". In column No. 2 there in, the head is, "Examination of body". It is mentioned at portion A to B as under : "On 28/5/75". In all these portions, A to B ; C to D ; and I to J, there is no overwriting at all. Similarly, at portion G to H, under the signature of the Medical Officer, the date mentioned is 28th May, 1975. There is no over-writing on this date also. So, that we looked in these portions, is that in Ex. P. 16, the portions marked as A to B; C to D; G to H; and I to J, have been written very clearly without any overwriting. So, it cannot be doubted about correctness of these portions. Dr. Harmohender Singh P. W. 10 was asked to explain about these portions, to which, he replied "In my postmortem report, Ex. P. 16, I have mentioned the date 28th May, 1975, A to B, on account of slip of pen or oversight. It should have been 29th May, 1975 instead of 28th May, 1975." He has further stated : "I :00 P. M. on 27th May, 1975, instead off at 6-00 P. M. on 29th May, 1975." Similar is the mistake in G to H and I to J. It should have been 29th May, 1975." We would like to mention here that in his statement, the said doctor has stated that at C to D in Ex. P. 16, 6 P. M. on 27th May, 1975, instead of 6 P. M. on 29th May, 1975, has been written, but, this is also incorrect. We have perused the statement of the doctor, and in the date, 29th May, 1975, i.e., in figure `9', there is clear overwriting. P. 16, 6 P. M. on 27th May, 1975, instead of 6 P. M. on 29th May, 1975, has been written, but, this is also incorrect. We have perused the statement of the doctor, and in the date, 29th May, 1975, i.e., in figure `9', there is clear overwriting. Under this figure `9' previously, there was some other figure, which is clearly visible by naked eye and this figure was in a faint ink, and above that figure, figure `9' has been typed which is in much more dark ink. This shows that while the statement of the doctor was being recorded, previously, some other date was mentioned and on that figure of date, figure `9' has been retyped and this retyping has been done repeatedly, so that, figure `9' is in very dark ink. Bis statement does not bear any signature of the presiding officer about the said correction or overwriting. Hence, a doubt is created whether the date is 29th or some other. However, the doctor has tried to explain the difference of date. His only submission is that on account of slip of pen or oversight, this mistake has been committed It is very easy to say that by mistake, by oversight or by slip of pen, he has committed this mistake. Such type of explanation is hardly believable. A Medical Officer who conducts a postmortem examination is supposed to be a very responsible Officer. On his report, the fate of a person is decided. So, can he be expected doing his duty in such an irresponsible manner? In the present case, the doctor has committed this error not at one place, but at four places and that too in one document. The postmortem report in this case, is a document containing about 4 pages, prepared by the doctor himself. It is expected that with due diligence and responsibility, such a document is prepared by the doctor. In this cast, the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sheonarain, was conducted in tax morning at 8.30 A M. The document, Ex. P. 14, which was sent by the Circle Officer, Khetri to the Medical Officer, Khetri, was received by the doctor, and he has mentioned on this document that he received it on 29th May, 1975. In this cast, the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sheonarain, was conducted in tax morning at 8.30 A M. The document, Ex. P. 14, which was sent by the Circle Officer, Khetri to the Medical Officer, Khetri, was received by the doctor, and he has mentioned on this document that he received it on 29th May, 1975. After toe receipt of this document, he came to the spot where the SHO, Police Station Khetri handed over to him the memo Ex. P. 10/15, which are unsigned and undated. Thus, they were received by the Medical Officer and endorsement was given by him and the date and time written by him was 29th May, 1975, at 8-30 A. M. The doctor himself has admitted that Ex. P. 15 was given to him by the SHO, Police Station Khetri at the spot when he reached there to perform the postmortem examinations at the request of the Circle Officer, and when this document Ex. P. 15 was given to him, he had the knowledge that the date was 29th May, 1975 and he has correctly mentioned on this document, Ex. P. 15 when he c inducted the postmortem examination and after conducting the postmortem examination, it was expected that be must have prepared the report that very moment and that very day. While preparing the postmortem report, he mentioned the date as 28th May, 1975 as marked He parton. Then, at portion C to D in the column of death, he has mentions the date and time as 8 30 A M. on 28th May, 1975. Then, on the examination of the deadbody, he has mentioned the date and time as at 8-30 A. M. on 28th May, 1975. Then, after completing the postmortem report, he has signed the said report it mark E to F and put the date under his signature at G to H as 28th May, 1975. All i. e. Ex. P. 14, Ex. P. 10 and Ex P. 15 have been mentioned as 29th May, 1975. But only in the postmortem report Ex. P. 16, the date is 28th May, 1975. Tic time of death he has specifically mentioned is 6 P.M. on 27th May, 1975. He conducted the postmortem examination on 29th May, 1975, and he received the member Ex.P. 15 and the latter Ex. But only in the postmortem report Ex. P. 16, the date is 28th May, 1975. Tic time of death he has specifically mentioned is 6 P.M. on 27th May, 1975. He conducted the postmortem examination on 29th May, 1975, and he received the member Ex.P. 15 and the latter Ex. P. 14 on 29th May, just before the starting of the postmortem examination while he writes in the report about the date and hour of the examination of the deadbody as 28th May, 1975. Can it be believed that this was a mistake on account of oversight or slip of pen ? We have no hesitation to say that the explanation given by the Medical Officer is not an explanation at all, and we do Dot fee) hesitation even to say that this is a mischievous explanation. The doctor who is supposed to be a very responsible officer, who guides the courts in deciding the fate of so many persons, and specially in murder cases, has so lightly given his explanation that on account of oversight or slip of pen, he has committed this mistake. We cannot imagine it even. There is no overwriting on these dates. So, we do not accept the explanation given by the doctor that by mistake, oversight or slip of pen he has committed this mistake. 14. Another point which leads to disbelieve the statement of the doctor is, That the said doctor in his statement has stated that the deceased must have died about 24 hours before the time of his post-mortem examination. The doctor was very clear that Sheonarain died about 24 hours before the post-mortem examination by him. Now, examining this aspect in view of the statement of the doctor, suppose, the post mortem was conducted on 29th May, 1975 at about 8 30 AM, and according to the doctor's statement the death must have occurred about 24 hours before at or about 8.30 PM, the death must have occurred at or around 8-30 AM on 28th May, 1975. The prosecution story is that the murder took place at about 6 PM on 28th May, 1975. So, if the date of post-mortem examination is taken as 29th May, 1975, then, too according to the statement of the doctor, the death must have occurred at or around 8.30 AM on 28th May, 1975 and not at 6 PM on 28th May, 1975. So, if the date of post-mortem examination is taken as 29th May, 1975, then, too according to the statement of the doctor, the death must have occurred at or around 8.30 AM on 28th May, 1975 and not at 6 PM on 28th May, 1975. Now, if the date of post-mortem is taken as 28th May, 1975 at about 8.30 Am, then according to the doctor, the death must have occurred at or around 8.30 AM, on 27th May, 1975, This correspond to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Sheonarain was murdered on 27th May, 1975, by some unknown person and the accused has been falsely implicated and a report has been falsely lodged against him in this case on 28th May, 1975 at about 10-30 PM when the allegation is that he was murdered at 6 PM on 28th May, 1975. Thus, we examined this date in pursuance of the statement of Dr. Harmohendra Singh, which according to his own statement, and which he has not contradicted, the death must have occurred not at 6 PM on 28th May, 1975. as alleged by the prosecution, but, must have occurred in the morning at about 8.30 AM or around it on 28th or on 27th May, 1975. Thus, this fact also creates a great suspicion in the correctness of the prosecution story. No explanation has been given with regard to this argument by the learned Public Prosecutor at the time of the arguments in the case. He could not reply this aspect and simply argued that by mistake or by oversight or slip of pen, the doctor committed this mistake. This is no argument. This is a case of murdering a person. This is a case where a person is involved in a murder case and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution wants to send a person behind the bars in such a casual manner. 15. During the course of arguments.it was argued that the post-mortem report, Ex. P. 16 is the copy, and the original document is in the register maintained by the Medical Officer in the hospital, and one copy of that register is sent to the Chief Medical Officer and another copy is sent to the police authorities, and Ex. 15. During the course of arguments.it was argued that the post-mortem report, Ex. P. 16 is the copy, and the original document is in the register maintained by the Medical Officer in the hospital, and one copy of that register is sent to the Chief Medical Officer and another copy is sent to the police authorities, and Ex. P. 16 in this case, is that copy, which was sent to the police authorities So, the original report is at the hospital, Khetri There is an endorsement on Ex. P. 16 which shows that despatch No. 446-67/29-5 75 has been mentioned therein. This also proves that the doctor was knowing the correct date The post-mortem report was sent on 29th May, 1975. If by mistake he has mentioned the date as 28th May, 1975 in the report at mark I to J, A to B and G to H and the date as 27th May, 1975 at mark C to D, then, be must have come to know about this mistake while despatching the report on 29th May, 1975. By sending the said report on 29th May, 1975, he must have noticed that he mentioned a wrong date under his signature as well as at mark I to J and A to B. Had it been a slip of pen or mistake by oversight, he would have corrected it. This aspect shows that there was no mistake or oversight or slip of pen in Ex. P. 16, but, when his statement was recorded, he took this plea about committing this mistake. The explanation it absolutely not bonafide and we discard it. Apart from this, we had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to call the doctor before this court, and also to produce the original register from the hospital, Khetri. But, in spite of grant of sufficient time, the learned Public Prosecutor could not produce either the doctor or the register before this Court. We wanted to do justice and in this respect, we wanted to see the original register, tut, we are constrained to write here that the register could not be produced before the Court, nor could the doctor be called. 16. There is ore more document which cast great suspicion on the prosecution story, and that is Ex. P. 4. This document was prepared by the Investigating Officer Hanumanaram P. W. 9. 16. There is ore more document which cast great suspicion on the prosecution story, and that is Ex. P. 4. This document was prepared by the Investigating Officer Hanumanaram P. W. 9. This is the Panchnama of the deadbody of Sheonarain, which was prepared by him We have also perused this document. In the very beginning of this document, the day of information is mentioned as 28th May, 1975 and the time is mentioned as 10-30 P.M. In Column. 2, which is with regard to date and time of reaching the place of occurrence. In this Column, the date has been mentioned as 28th May, 1975. and the time as 1 AM. In column-3, which is with regard to date and time of starting the investigation, it has been mentioned as 29th May, 1975. Then, in column-4 in part-3 the entry is with regard to date and time of handing over the deadbody to the representatives of deceased for cremation and the date has been mentioned as 28th May, 1975. Now from this document, it appears that the deadbody of Sheonarain, after the post-mortem examination, was handed over to the relatives of the deceased on 28th May, 1975. This shows that the post-mortem examination was conducted on 28th May, 1975, which corresponds the date mentioned in the post-mortem report, Ex. P. 16 If the post-mortem was conducted on 29th May, 1975, how the deadbody of Sheonarain deceased could have been handed over to the relatives of the deceased on 28th May, 1975 ? This date 28th May, 1975, in Ex. P. 4. has been written very clearly, without any overwriting or interpolation. The time mentioned for reaching the place of occurrence on 8th May, 1975 as 1 AM indicates that the death must have occurred on 27th May, 1975. The investigation started on 29th May, 1975, and according to the said document, the post-mortem was conducted on 28th May, 1975, and the deadbody was handed over to the relatives of the deceased on that very day. All these discrepancies mentioned, above, create a great suspicion in the correctness of the documents as well as in the prosecution story. The Investigating Officer was asked to explain the fact. He has stated that he prepared the Panchnama Ex. All these discrepancies mentioned, above, create a great suspicion in the correctness of the documents as well as in the prosecution story. The Investigating Officer was asked to explain the fact. He has stated that he prepared the Panchnama Ex. P. 4 oo the morning of 29th May, 1975, but, he was not asked to explain the difference of dates mentioned in the third column against the entry at serial Nos. 2 and 4 (3). The Investigating Officer should have explained how he mentioned the date as 28th May, 1975 for handing over the deadbody of Sheonarain to the relatives of the deceased, after the post-mortem examination. He could have explained how he reached the site of the occurrence on 28th May, 1975, at 1 AM. All these discrepancies could have been explained by the Investigating Officer only. But no explanation was asked from him, the learned Public Prosecutor in reply to the arguments of the learned amicus curiae, has simply argued that by mistake, the Investigating Officer has mentioned these dates in the Panchanama, Ex. P. 4 He reached the spot in the night at 1 AM in between 28th and 29th May, 1975. He failed to appreciate that after 12 O'clock in the night, day changes : So, actually, the Investigating Officer reached the spot not on the night of 28th but on the night of 29. at about O'Clock. The Investigating Officer could distinguish this minute point about the change of date after 12 O'Clock in the night, and on account of this he committed this mistake. We simply have sympathy with the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor. He has tried to explain the mistake committed by the Investigating Officer in such a light manner and he wants us to believe that in such a serious murder case we should believe such an Investigating Officer, who has played with the life of a person simply saying that he committed a mistake. We cannot expect even such type of argument advanced on behalf of the State; and the earned Public Prosecutor wants us to believe the story put forward by the prosecution agency. We cannot expect even such type of argument advanced on behalf of the State; and the earned Public Prosecutor wants us to believe the story put forward by the prosecution agency. We are constrained to say that in a most negligent and irresponsible manner, the investigation was conducted, and in a most irresponsible and negligent manner the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution before the trial court and now the learned Public Prosecutor wants us to believe that all has been done in a bonafide manner by the prosecution agency and the Medical Officer. We fail to agree with the arguments of the learned Publice Prosecutor. He could not satisfy us on this point. All these aspects clearly create not only doubt, but a great suspicion in the whole story of the prosecution. We have no hesitation to say that the prosecution has suppressed the correct facts of this case as to when the murder was committed and the person who committed the murder. The whole case appears to be a concocted and fabricated one, and we do not agree with the arguments and the reply advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 17. In view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that a great suspicion is created in the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond suspicion, the case against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, has failed to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, and he could not appreciate the grounds which create suspicion in the . story of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, had, simply relying on the statements of the four eye-witnesses, and not considering the other aspects of the I case, has held that appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC. We fail to agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. He could not appreciate the case and all the aspects in this respect in right perspective. He could not consider properly I that the whole story of the prosecution is not beyond suspicion, and that no reliance should be placed on it. We, therefore, feel that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable suspicion against the appellant. 18. In the result, we find full force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. He could not consider properly I that the whole story of the prosecution is not beyond suspicion, and that no reliance should be placed on it. We, therefore, feel that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable suspicion against the appellant. 18. In the result, we find full force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant, Bholaram, under Section 302, IPC, are set aside. Appellant Bholaram is according^"acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC, He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case; *******