JUDGMENT 1. - Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, by judgment dated September 26,1974, convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant has preferred these appeals, one represented and the other through jail. 2. There was a dispute with respect to field bearing khasra No. 932 measuring 31/4 bighas and 2 biswas situated in village Jodana between Hira, the husband of the deceased Hamiri and the accused Jitu. Jitu had purchased this land through a registered sale-deed, whereas prior to that, Hira had purchased the same through an unregistered sale-deed. Hira was in possession of the field and his crop was standing on the field. In connection with this land, Jitu had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and there was a date of hearing. Hira the husband of the deceased left for Kapasan a day prior to the date of hearing and had instructed his son to keep a watch of the house as well as of the crop as his mother Hamiri would also be visiting Kapasan. After having taken her morning break fast on 17.1.73, the deceased Hamiri went to watch her field. She found Jitu grazing his cattle in her field. She asked Jitu to drive the cattle out of the field but he refused and there after scuffle took place. It is alleged that some beating was administered by the accused to the lady and thereafter he pulled and pushed her by a leg-blow into the well named as Gujariwala. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Balu (P. W. 5). Kalu (P. W. 6), Uda (P. W. 13) and Devilal (P.W. 14). Despite the incident having been witnessed by these witnesses whose age ranges between 14 to 30, none informed in the village, nor any steps were taken to take out Mst. Hamiri from the well. As per the prosecution case as unfolded at the trial, Ratna (P.W. 12), son of the deceased came to know from Uda (P. W. 13) that his mother was drowned by the accused in the well. He also came forward with the case that when he felt thrust, he went to the well and found one Dibbi (article 1) floating in the well which belonged to his mother and he narrated it to his brother Rama (P. W. 9). He also came forward with the case that when he felt thrust, he went to the well and found one Dibbi (article 1) floating in the well which belonged to his mother and he narrated it to his brother Rama (P. W. 9). It may be stated that Chattar Singh (P. W. 1) through P. W.2 Bhera sent the written report Ex. P. 2 to the police station on 19.10.73. It was stated in the report by Shri Chattar Singh (P. W. 1) that Mst. Hamiri had died on account of fall in the well. After presentation of the report, the messenger Bheru was interrogated by the police and it was recorded in the police proceedings beneath the written report that the dead body of Hamiri had been taken out from the well Gujariwala but how she fell in the well and how she died is not known. Her husband is not in the village. Her sons Rama, Ratna and Balu were present but they could not be questioned as they were in frightened state and were weeping. Investigation under Section 174 Cr.P. was undertaken. C.S.H.O. Azeez Ahmed (P. W. 16) visited the spot, prepared the Panchayat Nama and recorded the statement of Rama Ex. P. 14. On the basis, of which case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. Spot investigation was conducted. witnesses were interrogated and autopsy of the dead body was also got conducted. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused who was committed for trial before the court of Sessions, Partabgarh, who charged the accused for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded in which he denied the prosecution case. The accused examined four witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge primarily on the basis of evidence on record found the accused guilty for the offence, hence convicted and sentenced him. Therefore, these appeals have been filed by the appellant, aggrieved against the Judgment of conviction and sentence. 3. We have heard Shri Niranjan Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. S. Udawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The entire prosecution case hinges on the credibility of the four eye-witnesses. Therefore, these appeals have been filed by the appellant, aggrieved against the Judgment of conviction and sentence. 3. We have heard Shri Niranjan Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. S. Udawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The entire prosecution case hinges on the credibility of the four eye-witnesses. P.W.5 Balu, P.W.6, Kalu, P.W. 13 Uda, P.W. 14 Devilal said to be present at the time of the occurrence, grazing their cattle. According to their testimony, at the time of occurrence they were quite near by to the accused and the deceased. The whole question is as to whether they had witnessed the occurrence. The answer to this question would depend as to how they had behaved to the situation. If their conduct appears to be most unnatural and improbable, then there presence would become highly doubtful. If all these four witnesses would have been present at the spot, their natural conduct would have been to intervene and save the poor lady. Balu is aged 30 years and Devilal, too, is aged about 30 years. The accused Jitu is 42 years old. The other two witnesses are aged about 16-17 years but the witnesses were four in number, they could have certainly intervened and rescued the lady. The evidence of these four witnesses on the point that whether any threat was extended by the accused to them is discrepant. All the witnesses have not stated that any threat was extended to them by the accused. That apart, even if it is taken that being under the threat of the accused, they did not intervene still they did not act in the manner they should have acted after the accused had left the place. The witnesses have stated that they did not go to the well and peep into it to find out the condition of the lady who had been thrown into the well. The evidence in this regard as well is discrepant. Besides that what is most material is that they did not even inform any one in the village and more particularly the members of the family of the deceased that Jitu had pushed the lady into the well. The evidence in this regard as well is discrepant. Besides that what is most material is that they did not even inform any one in the village and more particularly the members of the family of the deceased that Jitu had pushed the lady into the well. Had they witnessed the occurrence, the natural conduct of the witnesses would have been to inform the villagers about the occurrence so that steps could have been taken by the villagers to save the life of the lady by taking her out of the well in time. Besides that, the evidence of these four witnesses is also discrepant on the point as to whether on the next day morning all the four witnesses went to the house of Rama and informed him. On the other hand, the evidence which has come on record is that it was Rama (PW.9) who went to Balu and Devilal who informed him about the occurrence. Although Rama himself at the trial had stated that all her four witnesses told him that his mother had been thrown in the well by the accused Jitu. It is not his version that his brother Ratna had informed him. Thus the statements of Rama and Ratna were also discrepant on the point. Admittedly, Rama and Ratna were not the witnesses who had seen the occurrence. We are examining the question as to whether the incident was observed by any witness. If the statements of four eye-witnesses are perused, it would be clear that their testimony is not inspiring and their conduct belies and falsifies their version looking to their unnatural conduct and behaviour. If the evidence of these four eye witnesses is excluded on the aforesaid ground, there does not remain any other evidence which may connect the accused with the commission of the offence. The whole prosecution story, therefore, becomes highly doubtful. If the occurrence would have been witnessed, there would not have been so much delay in lodging the report. That, too, in the form of simply narrating the fact of the death of Hamiri by fall in the well. The prosecution case can also be considered in the light that when the dead-body was taken out, the sons of the deceased were present and by that time they must have known as to how the occurrence had taken place. That, too, in the form of simply narrating the fact of the death of Hamiri by fall in the well. The prosecution case can also be considered in the light that when the dead-body was taken out, the sons of the deceased were present and by that time they must have known as to how the occurrence had taken place. If they had known then that story would have been disclosed by them to the informant. Ratna (P. W.12) has stated that all the four witnesses were called at the house of Chatter Singh and Chatter Singh told them as to why the matter was concealed and thereafter the report was sent in the morning. If the matter was known, it is really strange that as to how a simple report of fall in the well was lodged. The nature of the report, therefore, makes the prosecution story further doubtful. In any case, in our opinion, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt .for lack of necessary reliable connecting evidence. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and appellant Jitu is acquitted of the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. He is already on bail, so he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******