S. I. JAFRI J. ( 1 ) MAN Mohan, Gaya Din, Jagdish and Santosh have filed and his appeal appeal their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment recorded by Sri Han Har Saran, Sessions Judge Jhansi by his judgment and order dated 12-5-1975. The deceased Kishore Prasad and the appellants Manmohan, Gaya Din and Santosh are colatarals whereas appellant Jagdish belongs to the party of accused. It may further be noted that Man Mohan appellant hap turned out his wife after giving her beating and he had kept Kamla as his concubine and accused Santosh was born out or the said union between Man Mohan and Kamla. 3. It is alleged by the prosecution that there was a litigation between Kishore Prasad deceased and Man Mohan appellant and he had also sent application to the authorities alleging apprehension of violence from the side of Man Mohan appellant and other accused. As shown above in the pedigree. Man Mohan appellant is the son of Jugal Kishore, the real brother of Kishore Prasad deceased. The appellant Jagdish is the son of Babu lal who is the brother of Man Mohan and Santosh is toe son of appellant Man Mohan. Gaya Din belongs to the party of appellant Man Mohan as stated above. 4. The prosecution case is that at about - 9. 30 A. M. on 30th December 1975, the deceased Kishore Prasad was going from his village Sisa to Poonch and when he reached on the road near the Chabutra of Sati the appellant Man Mohan armed with Kulhari, Gaya Din and Santosh appellants armed with Barchhees and Jagdisb appdlant armed with Lathi, assaulted him with their respective weapons and on receiving the injuries, the deceased Kishore Prasad fell down and died on the spot. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by a number of witnesses and on the their raised by them, the appellant made good their escape. P. W. 11 Shyam Sunder, nephew of the deceased, went to Police Station Moth and lodged written export Ex. ka. 15 at the Police Station at 11. 30 A. M. on 30-12-75 P. W. 5 Tulsi Ram prepared the Chik Report Ex. ka. 3 and on the basis of the aforesaid report, he registered a case in the General Diary of the Police Station against the appellants. ka. 15 at the Police Station at 11. 30 A. M. on 30-12-75 P. W. 5 Tulsi Ram prepared the Chik Report Ex. ka. 3 and on the basis of the aforesaid report, he registered a case in the General Diary of the Police Station against the appellants. Copy of the said G. D. entry is Ex. ka. 4. P. W.-12 Ram Singh Sub-Inspector was present at the Police Station when the aforesaid case was registered, He took the investigation of the case in his hands and recorded the statement of Head constable Tulsi Ram at the Police Station and left for the place of occurrence. On the way at Police Out-post Poonch, he took the Police Personnels with him and reached the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest Ex. ka. 9 on the body of the deceased Kishore Prasad and sent the dead body of the deceased Kishore Prasad in a sealed cover to Mortuary for post mortem examination through constables Achhe Lal and Sri Kant. He also inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex. ka. 27. He also found blood at the place of occurrence and in the presence of the witnesses, he collected blood-stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo. He then, recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also searchect for the accused persons but they were not found. He also searched the houses of the appellants but nothing incriminating was found therein. 5. Doctor R. K. Arora conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Kishore Prasad at 11. 30 A. M. on 31-12-1975. The Post Mortem report is EX. ka. 1. He found the following anti-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: 1. Lacerated wound x 1/2 x muscle deep on the loft lower lip. ( 2 ) INCISED wound 1, X 2/3 x bone deep on the front of chin middle. Wound was horizontal. The underlying bone lower both sides was fractured and right upper lateral incisor tooth and left lower lateral incisor tooth were missing with blood clots in their sockets. The other teeth were loose. ( 3 ) INCISED wound x x muscle deep on the right upper lip, slightly oblique. ( 4 ) PUNCTURED wound with lacerated edges x 1/2 x 1, 1/2 x depth on the right cheek bone with fracture of underlying right maxilla. The other teeth were loose. ( 3 ) INCISED wound x x muscle deep on the right upper lip, slightly oblique. ( 4 ) PUNCTURED wound with lacerated edges x 1/2 x 1, 1/2 x depth on the right cheek bone with fracture of underlying right maxilla. ( 5 ) PUNCTURED wound with lacerated edges 1/2 x 1/2 x 3 depth on the nose bridge slightly to the left going backwards and upwards into the brain substance. ( 6 ) INCISED wound 1, 1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep on the right side forehead reaching upto the eye lid. The wound was vertical with communicated fracture of underlying bones. The brain tissue was exposed and underlying tissues were contused. ( 7 ) INCISED wound 1, 1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep on the upper part of forehead, middle horizontal with fracture of underlying bones. The underlying tissues were contused. ( 8 ) INCISED wound 2, 1/2 x 1/3 x bone deep on the top of bead just to the right of mid line. The wound was vertical. ( 9 ) INCISED wound 3, 1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep just above the left eyebrow. The wound was horizontal. The underlying tissues were contused and bone fractured. ( 10 ) INCISED wound 1 x x bone deep on the left side head top front, near the mid line oblique. ( 11 ) CONTUSION 3, 1/2 x 2 on the back of right forearm middle with fracture of underlying bones Radius and Udda. ( 12 ) CONTUSION 4 x 2t on the back of right forearm lower third. ( 13 ) CONTUSION 3 x 2, 1/2 on the back of fingers of right hand with fracture of proximal phalanges of 2,3, and 4 fingers. The blood clots present all around the wounds face and head. 6. On internal examination, the Doctor found multiple fracture of skull bone including the frontal parietal bone, lower jaw and right maxilla. He also found the brain badly lacerated. The Doctor also found fracture of right maxilla present. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to coma, as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries on the head. 7. P. W. 12 Ram Singh after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 8. The Doctor also found fracture of right maxilla present. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to coma, as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries on the head. 7. P. W. 12 Ram Singh after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 8. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. 9. We have heard Sri C. S. Saran the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the complainant and also the learned Government Advocate for the State at a great length and we feel that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court must be set aside. 10. The prosecution bas examined in all 12 witnesses in, support of its case and out of them P. W. 1 Lallu, P. W. 3 Panche, P. W. 4 Daulat, P. W. 7t Chaitu and P. W. 11 Shyani Sunder are the witnesses of the occurrence. 11. The appellants have examined, two witnesses in their defence D. W. 1 Tejendra Mohan, Head constable has proved chik report of Crime No. 60 under section 397 Indian Penal Code of Police Station Moth D. W. 2 Dwarika Prasad, Election Clerk has filcd a no-confidence resolution moved against Man Mohan accused on 12-11-1978. He also stated that amongst others, P. W. 11 Shyam Sunder, P. W. Paliche, P. W. Chaitu and P. W. Daulat were also the movers of this resolution. He also filed the proceedings written by the Panchayat Inspector. 12. P. W. 11 Shyam Sundei is the nepbew of the deceased Kishore Prasad. He stated that on hearing-the cries and alarm, he alongwith his sister Mithla Devi were attracted to the Scene of occurrence and saw the accused assaulting deceased with Kulhari, Barchhees, and Lathi. He stated that the appellant Man Mohan was armed with Kulhari, Gaya Din and Santosh were armed with Barchhees, and appellant Jagdish was armed with Lathi and all the four appellants had assaulted the deceased who, on receiving the injuries, fell down and the appellants had made good their escape towards the Jungle. He also stated that the occurrence was also witnessed by Bhagwan. Dass, Chitu, Panche, Lallu, Ajudhi and Daulat. He also stated that the occurrence was also witnessed by Bhagwan. Dass, Chitu, Panche, Lallu, Ajudhi and Daulat. He stated that he heard the alarm when he was going alongwith his sister Mithla Devi with his cattle for sending them off with the Barehi (Herdsman) on the road in order that they be taken by the Barehi for grazing. It is stated that the said Barehi has not been examined to corroborate the statement of Shyam Sunder. He has aamitted in his evidence thatt in the Election of 1972 for Pradhan-ship of his village, he, appellant Man Mohan, Rama Nand and Chatur Bhu were the candidates and Man Mohan appellant was declared successful. He denied to have filed any No Confidence resolution against Man Mohan appellant, but the defence has established by examining D. W. 2 Dwarika Prasad Election Clerk who had produced the resolution of No Confidence Motion along with the records of the proceedings that Shyam Sunder was one of the signatory of the No Confidence resolution moved against the appellant. He had also admitted. that there was deep seated enmity between his uncle and the accused but at the same time there is ample evidence on record of the case to show that there were many other persons in the village who had also harboured strong motive to cause the death of deceased Kishore Prasad. Ex. kha. 9, is a complaint filed by One Ram Rati under the untouchability Act on 22-4. 1974 against Kishore Prasad deceased, Panche witness and five others which shows that Harijans of the village were also on inimical terms with the deceased. He has also admitted that the Kishore prasad deceased also used to transact money lending business. Therefore, in view of the deep stated enmity between the P. W. Shyam Sunder and his uncle deceased Kishore prasad one - on one hand and the appellant Mail Mohan and other, it will not be safe to place implicit reliance on the testimony of Shyam Sunder who is not only highly partisan but also a Chance Witness. His statement that he reached the place of occurrence while he was taking his cattle to the Road for handing them over to the Barehi, does not appear to be believeable. 13. His statement that he reached the place of occurrence while he was taking his cattle to the Road for handing them over to the Barehi, does not appear to be believeable. 13. P. W. 1 Lallo, P. W. 8 Panchi, P. W. 4 Daulat and P. W. 7 Chaitu are also highly partisan and inimical towards the appellants. From the defence evidence, it is absolutely clear that the prosecution witnesses are highly inimical towards the appellant. Ex. kha 18 is a copy of chargesheet in a case Gole v. ]agdish appellant. In this chargesheet P. W. 3 Panchhe and P. W. 4 Daulat have been shown as witnesses for the prosecution. Ex. kha 3 is the copy of First Information Report dated 5. 5. 74 under Section 395 Indian Penal Code lodged by one Chhedi and in this report P. Ws. Daulat and Panchhe are also arrayed among the accused persons in addition to other persons Ex, kha. 2 is a copy of the First Information Report lodged by appellant Gaya Din on 8. 5. 1974 under Section 395 Indian Penal Code and in this report also, P. W. 12 Shyam Sunder and Panchhe alongwith others were shown as accused persons. Ex. kha 9 is a complaint filed by Ram Rati under the untouchability Act on 22. 4. 1974. This complaint is against Kishore Prasad deceased, Panchhe witness and others. Ex. kha 10 is-a challani report of Police under Section 110 Criminal Procedure Coae against Gayadin appellant dated 9. 7. 74. In this Chauani Report P. W. Oaulat is also mentioned as one of the prosecution witnesses. Ex. kha 12 is a copy of the complaint by one Tulsi against P. W. Daulat under Section 397 Indian Penal Code filed before Niyaye Panchayat on 20. 11. 1976. In this complaint, Gaya Din and Santosh appellants were shown as prosecution witnesses. Ex. ka 13 is another copy of the complaint by Shyam Lal against P. W. 7 Chaitu under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, before Niyaye Panchayat on 27. 10. 1973. In this complaint, appellants Gaya Din and Santosh were shown as prosecution witnesses. Ex. kba. 14 is a complaint filed by P. W. 11 Shyam Sunder against appellants Man Mohan, Jagdish and Santosh and four others under Section 395 Indian Penal Code on 5. 1. 1971. In this complaint P. W. Daulat was also one of the prosecution witnesses. 1973. In this complaint, appellants Gaya Din and Santosh were shown as prosecution witnesses. Ex. kba. 14 is a complaint filed by P. W. 11 Shyam Sunder against appellants Man Mohan, Jagdish and Santosh and four others under Section 395 Indian Penal Code on 5. 1. 1971. In this complaint P. W. Daulat was also one of the prosecution witnesses. ( 14 ) P. W. 1 Lallu is also highly partisan witness. He had admitted that his uncle Raxi died leaving his widow Smt. Genda Rani and P. W. 4 Daulat had kept Smt. Genda Rani as his wife and, therefore, in view of this relation ship Lallu cannot be said to be an independent witness, rather from his own admission, he is also highly interested witness. Moreover. P. W. 1 Lallu has admitted in his evidence that he had cultivated the land of Gokul Prasad prior to the occurrence and this Gokul Prasad is a brother of the deceased Kishore Prasad. ( 15 ) WE, therefore, hold that in view of the documentary evidence produced in this case and also the admission of the prosecution witnesses, it is absolutely clear that the prosecution witnesses Lallu, Fanchi, Daulat, Chaitu and Shyam Sunder are not only very closely connected with the deceased Kishore Prasad but also they are inimical to the accused persons. All these witnesses got attracted to the scene of occurrence per chance. Therefore, it may not be Sife to place implicit reliance on their testimony for the conviction of the appellant without independent corroboration which is lacking in this case. Moreover, another circumstance--which creates-reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story is that no money or any paper concerning litigation was found from the person of the deceased at the time of inquest, though according to the prosecution case, the deceased was assaulted while he was going to attend his case pending before the consolidation Court at Poonch on the day of occurrence. It is surprising that if the deceased was to go to Poonch in connection with Pairvi of his case, there was no money in his pocket. It is, therefore, quit apparent that the deceased was done to death when he was going to attend his case in the Court at Poonch, is not at all worthy of reliance. It is surprising that if the deceased was to go to Poonch in connection with Pairvi of his case, there was no money in his pocket. It is, therefore, quit apparent that the deceased was done to death when he was going to attend his case in the Court at Poonch, is not at all worthy of reliance. ( 16 ) IT was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that beneath the injuries Nos. 6, 7 and 9 the tissues were found contused and also beneath injury No. 4, there was fracture of underlying right maxilla and in injury No. 6 the wound was vertical with communicated fracture of underlying bone and also the underlying tissues of the brain were contused. The injury No. 7 on the upper part of forehead, there was fracture of underlying bone and the underlying tissues were also contused. Likewise in injury No. 9, underlying tissues were also contused and bone was fractured. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the Post Mortem report though Injury Nos. 6, 7 and 9 have been shown as incised wound but in view of their underlying tissues being found, these are the result of blunt weapon injuries and not incised injuries as shown by Doctor R. K. Arora and therefore the prosecution story that from among the appellants namely Man Mohan, Gaya Din and Santosh were armed with sharp edged weapons, is belied by the medical evidence in this case and as such no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The Doctor had admitted that he had not mentioned in the post mortem report that the margins of incised wound were clean cut. He has stated that in injuries Nos. 6, 7 and 9 the edges might have been sharp. He has also admitted in his evidence that he did not see the edges of the incised injuries with the help of hand glass. He further admitted that sometimes, it happens that blunt weapon injuries on scalp, eye brow, iliac crest and prenium appear to be like incised wound though they are not incised has admitted that Lathi is not capable of causing incised wounds but if the Lath is struck on the scalp, eyebrow, iliac crest, prenium, them they may appear to be as incised wound. He has admitted that if beneath the incised wound, bone is cut, then he mentions bone-cut and in the incised wound he had not written bone-cut in the post mortem report as he had found the fracture and so he had written fracture. He further admitted that beneath the injuries Nos. 5, 8 and 10, he did not mention bone-cut as the bones were not cut. He further stated that injuries Nos. 4 and 5 be caused by such weapon which might be pointed with no sharp edges and if weapon is pointed and sharp then injuries Nos. 4 and 5 may not be caused.- He also admitted that in the injuries where he had mentioned underlying tissues as contused, they were also dismissed as the underlying tissues were also bruised. Be further stated that he did not given attention during post mortem examination whether in injuries found on the skull, hair bulbs were crushed or not and he did not examine them with any Jens. He further admitted in cross-examination that he is in complete agreement with the opinion mentioned in Modis Medical Jurisprudence 9th Edition mentioned at page 213 which is noted below: Occassionally on wounds produced by blunt weapon or by a fall, the skin spits and may look like incised wound when inflicted on tense structure covering tile bones such as the skull, eye brow, iliac crest, skin, pertinum but the edges of such wound will be found irregular with a certain amount of bruising and small strnads of issues may be seen at the bottom bridging across the margins if examined by the hand lens. In the case of the wounds of the skull the hair bulbs will be found crushed if they are inflicted with the blunt weapon but will be found out and forced with the wound if produced by a cutting weapon like a heavy edged axe. ( 17 ) HE has further admitted that if beneath the incised wounds, bones would have been cut, he would have mentioned in the Post Mortem Report as bone-cut. He further admitted that be did not find bone-cut beneath the incised wounds as there were fractures beneath the incised wounds. Therefore, he had mentioned as fracture. He has also admitted that injuries Nos. 3, 8 and 10 he did not find bonecut, as the bone was not cut. He further admitted that be did not find bone-cut beneath the incised wounds as there were fractures beneath the incised wounds. Therefore, he had mentioned as fracture. He has also admitted that injuries Nos. 3, 8 and 10 he did not find bonecut, as the bone was not cut. Moreover the incised injuries on the deceased which are either skin deeper muscles deep does not appear to have been caused by axe which is a heavy sharp cutting weapon. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, from the statement of the Doctor R. Y. . . Arora, it is probable that the injuries Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 were not the result of sharp edged weapon as stated by the prosecution witnesses in this case and also as shown in the Post Mortem Report by Doctor R. K. Arora P. W. 2 but they were the result of blunt weapon, and, also the incised injuries of the deceased which are either skin deep or even muscles deep were not probability caused by axe which is a heavy sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, the statement of witnesses is also belied by the medical evidence in this case. It appears probable that the assault on the deceased Kishore Prasad was not witnessed by the witnesses examined in this case. ( 19 ) HAVING considered all the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded against the appellants by the Trial Court, are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Appellants set free- .