J.R. CHOPRA, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated November 12. 1980 whereby the learned lower court has held accused Raichand and Girdhari guilty of the offence under ss. 147 302/149 I. P. C. whereas it has held accused Bhiya Ram, Arjunram and Asuram guilty of the offence under ss. 148 and 302/149 I. P. C. Accused Girdhari and Raichand have been sentenced to 4 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence under s. 147 I.P.C. whereas accused Shivaram, Arjunram and Asuram have been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the offence under s. 148 I.P.C. All the accused persons have been sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the offence under s. 302/149 I. P. C. and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The story of the prosecution as disclosed in the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1 is that on June 25, 1979. the camels of deceased Ramkaran which were looked after by his son P.W. 1 Gangabishan entered into the field of Bhiyaram. Bhiyaram gave a beating to Gangabishan. In the evening Gangabishan reported this matter to his father Ramkaran. On June 25, 1979, Ramkaran went and remonstrated Bhiyaram for chastising his son Gangabishan. On June 27. 1979, Ramkaran was going to the police station to report the matter. However, Bhiyaram etc. went to village Janglu and the elders of the village called Bhiyaram, Arjunram and Girdhari etc. alongwith Ramkaran and his elder brother Mamraj to settle the matter through the Panchayat. It is alleged that they except Mamraj went to village Janglu. There, the matter was amicably settled between them with the intervention of the village elders. Later, accused Raichand and deceased Ramkaran came to the Dhani of P. W. 6 Ramchandra on a camel drive cart belonging to P. W. 6 Ramchandra. From there, Raichand went to his own dhani. The other accused persons i.e. Arjun-ram, Asuram, Girdhari and Bhiyaram etc. went to their own dhani Ramkaran stayed at the dhani of Ramchandra. There, he took meals at 3 P. M. At about 4. P. M , it is alleged that Raichand came to the Dhani of Ramchandra and persuaded Ramkaran to accompany him to see the Bajra crop standing in the field of Raichand. went to their own dhani Ramkaran stayed at the dhani of Ramchandra. There, he took meals at 3 P. M. At about 4. P. M , it is alleged that Raichand came to the Dhani of Ramchandra and persuaded Ramkaran to accompany him to see the Bajra crop standing in the field of Raichand. It is alleged that thereupon, Ramkaran accompanied Raichand at about 4 P. M. When Ramkaran reached into the field of Raichand in the company of Raichand, accused Bhiyaram armed with a Sella and accused Arjunram armed with an iron pronged Jaiee were hiding behind a Ker bush and Asuram and Girdhari armed with lathis were hiding themselves behind the thorn fencing existing between the fields of Raichand and Bhiyaram. Raichand gave a sighal whereupon all these four persons immediately pouched upon Ramkaran and gave him a severe beating. Raichand was also armed with a lathi and he was giving Lalkaras that this Moda should not be kept alive. This occurrence was witnessed by Gangabishan who was grazing his camels in the field of Panji which was then cultivated by deceased Ramkaran. On seeing the occurrence, he started weeping and raised a cry which attracted the attention of P. W. 2 Shaitansingh. Shaitan was then going to bring water on his bullock cart. He also raised a hue and cry. While weeping and crying, Gangabishan went towards his own dhani. This attracted the attention of P.W. 4 Mamraj and P.W. 5 Mohanram who are the elder and younger brothers of deceased Ramkaran respectively as also P. W. 3 Smt. Ramku wife of deceased Ramkaran. They immediately rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw that these four accused persons were beating Ramkaran whereas Raichand was instigating them by giving a Lalkars that this Moda should not be kept alive. P. W. 6 Ramchandra also heard these cries and he too, came towards the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, accused persons ran away from the scene of occurrence. By the time, these persons reached near the dead body of Ramkaran, he was already breathing his last. Then Mohanram inquired from Gangabishan as to what has happened. Gangabishan related to him the entire incident. Mohanram then made a report of this incident at police station Nokha which has been marked Ex. P. 1. By the time, these persons reached near the dead body of Ramkaran, he was already breathing his last. Then Mohanram inquired from Gangabishan as to what has happened. Gangabishan related to him the entire incident. Mohanram then made a report of this incident at police station Nokha which has been marked Ex. P. 1. The police immediatly registered a case under s. 302/34 I. P. C. and reached the spot and conducted the spot investigations. The autopsy on the dead body was also got conducted. The accused persons were arrested. Blood stained soil, shoes of the deceased, the blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken into possession by the police. During investigation, on the information and at the instance of the accused persons, one Sella was recovered at the instance of accused Bhiyaram, one Jaiee was recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Arjunram and one blood lathi was recovered from accused Girdhari. One lathi was also recovered from accused Raichand and one Barchhi was recovered from accused Ashram. After usual investigation, the case was challaned in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, who committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Bikaner for trial. The accused-persons were charged with the offences under ss. 147, 148 and 302/149 I. P. C. The plea of the accused persons was recorded. They pleaded not guilty to the charges whereupon the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under s. 313 Cr.P.C. They led no defence. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as stated above. 3. Aggrieved against this judgment, all the 5 accused persons have preferred this appeal. 4. It has been stated at the bar that accused Raichand who was on bail died during the pendency of the appeal. The other four accused-persons are still lodged in the Jail. 5. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The learned lower court has held that deceased Ramkaran met homicidal death. It has believed the evidence of P. W. 1 Gangabishan, P. W.2 Shaitansingh, P. W. 3 Mst. 5. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The learned lower court has held that deceased Ramkaran met homicidal death. It has believed the evidence of P. W. 1 Gangabishan, P. W.2 Shaitansingh, P. W. 3 Mst. Ramku, P. W. 4 Mamraj and P. W. 5 Mohanram informant and P. W. 6 Ramchandra as the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence and has held that all the four appellants except accused Raichand inflicted blows to deceased Ramkaran whereas Raichand was also present on the scene of the occurrence armed with a lathi and was giving Lalkaras inducing these four persons not to keep deceased Ramkaran alive. 7. We have meticulously gone through the record of the case and have also given our most earnest consideration to the submissions made at the bar. The case entirely depends on appreciation of the ocular evidence, which firstly relates to the motive for the crime and secondly, to the eye witness account of the incident. Now it has to be seen how far this evidence is reliable. 8. It has not been disputed before us that deceased Ramkaran met a homicidal death. P. W. 8 Dr. Nathmal has conducted the autopsy of the deceased on June 25,1979 in the field of Raichand where the deadbody was lying. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex. P. 15. According to him, there were 12 external injuries present on the person of the deceased. The Doctor has opined that these injuries could be received by a lathi, Barchhi, Jaiee and Sella etc. All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature. According to the Doctor, injuries No. I, 2, 3, and 5 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death and injuries No. 2 and 3 were sufficient individually in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. According to him, after receiving these injuries, deceased may speak a few words but he cannot speak more than one or two words. As per the Doctor, on examination of his stomach, chyme was found in the stomach and, therefore, the deceased must have taken his meals before 4 to 8 hours of his death. Thus, this fact stands amply proved that deceased Ramkaran met a homicidal death. 9. Now we proceed to examine and scrutinise the ocular evidence. As per the Doctor, on examination of his stomach, chyme was found in the stomach and, therefore, the deceased must have taken his meals before 4 to 8 hours of his death. Thus, this fact stands amply proved that deceased Ramkaran met a homicidal death. 9. Now we proceed to examine and scrutinise the ocular evidence. 10. First, we shall take up the evidence regarding motive. In the F. I.R. no motive has been alleged regarding this murder. However, P.W. 5 Mohanram has stated in his statement that his brother has been killed because he has called the Panchayat regarding the beating given by Bhiyaram to Gangabishan. No other person has stated any thing about the motive. However, it was strenuously argued before us that the motive alleged by the prosecution can never give rise to such a serious occurrence of killing a man. It is so alleged that before 2 to 3 days of the murder, the herd of 10 he or she camels of Ramkaran which were under the care of Gangabishan for grazing etc. entered into the field of Bhiyaram. Bhiyaram, therefore, gave a beating to Gangabishan. Gangabishan reported this matter to his father Ramkaran. Ramkaran went to the dhani of Bhiyaram and remonstrated him for giving a beating to his son Gangabishan. However, Bhiyaram abused Gangabishan and this probably enraged Ramkaran and, therefore, on the date of the occurrence, he declared that he is going to report the matter to the police. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on this, accused party approached certain villager elders and they called the Panchayat. The Panchayat took place in village Janglu and Ramkaran was sent for by the Panchayat. There, the village elders got the matter compromised and after that, accused Ramchand and deceased Ramkaran came on the same camel driven cart which belonged to Ramchandra P. W. 6 and the other accused persons went to their dhani. Now it has been alleged by P. W. 5 Mohanram that because his brother has called the Panchayat, the accused persons got enraged and committed this crime. This version of P. W. 5 Mohanram does not stand to reason because the case of the prosecution in the F.I R. as well as at the trial has been that the Panchayat was called by the accused persons and not by Ramkaran. This version of P. W. 5 Mohanram does not stand to reason because the case of the prosecution in the F.I R. as well as at the trial has been that the Panchayat was called by the accused persons and not by Ramkaran. Actually, deceased Ramkaran was going to report the matter to the police and, therefore, if, anybody could call the Panchayat, it would certainly have been called by or on behalf of the accused persons and not by Ramkaran. The testimony of P. W. 3 Ramku fully supported this version. She has stated that Ramkaran was at his dhani. The village Kotwal came to their dhani, told her husband that village elders are calling Ramkaran for settlement of the dispute with the accused. This clearly shows that the Panchayat assembled at the request of the accused persons and not at the request of Ramkaran, Ramkaran actually though it fit to get the matter settled in the village itself and so, he agreed to the request of Panchayat and the matter was amicably settled and, therefore, there remained no grouse to the accused persons to commit such a serious offence of murder on this account. This evidence of motive does not fit in the scheme of this crime and hence this motive which has been alleged for the commission of the crime can hardly stand judicial scrutiny to be made the basis for connecting the accused persons with the crime. It is true that motive need not be pleaded by the prosecution to prove its case. However, if the evidence of the prosecution is otherwise reliable and unimpeachable, the accused persons can be convicted of the alleged crime even in the absence of the evidence regarding motive. 11. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is most unnatural that after coming from the village Janglu, Raichand will go back to the Dhanii of Ramchandra to persuade Ramkaran to accompany him on the pretext that they may go and see the Bajra crop. It has not categorically come in the evidence whether they wanted to see Bajra crop standing in the field of Raichand or in the field of Panji, which was then cultivated by Ramkaran. However, P. W. 6 Ramchandra has stated that after they came from the village Janglu to his dhani, Ramkaran stayed there and Raichand left for his dhani. It has not categorically come in the evidence whether they wanted to see Bajra crop standing in the field of Raichand or in the field of Panji, which was then cultivated by Ramkaran. However, P. W. 6 Ramchandra has stated that after they came from the village Janglu to his dhani, Ramkaran stayed there and Raichand left for his dhani. Ramkaran took his meals at 3 P.M. and slept. After that, at about 4 P.M. accused Raichand came and told Ramkaran to accompany him for seeing the Bajra crop. The fields of Ramkaran and Raichand are adjacent to each other. Their dhanis are very near to each other. They used to go to their fields daily and so that was no extra - ordinary about the Bajra crop which could compel Ramkaran to accompany Raichand to see it is most understandable. The pretext which has been invented for persuading Ramkaran to accompany Raichand to his field appears to be totally unworthy of credence. We. entirely, agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the pretext which has been put forth for Ramkaran to accompany Raichand cannot satisfy even a lay - man muchless any judicial - conscience. When they are neighbours and see the Bajra crop of each other daily, what was the compulsion for Raichand to come back to the dhani of Ramchandra to take Ramkaran with him simply to show the Bajra crop which has only erupted by then and was only 4 Angels high. We therefore, feel disinclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that Raichand would go to the Dhani of Ramchandra to request Ramkaran to accompany him to see the Bajra crop at his own field or at the filed of Ramkaran. Thus, this entire evidence regarding motive is unbelievable and cannot be pressed into service to link the accused persons with the crime. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that even ocular evidence regarding the incident is most unreliable and unbelievable. He submitted that there could be no motive or no conceivable reason for Raichand to go to the Dhani of Ramchandra to bring Ramkaran with him at 4 p.m. to see the Bajra crop. It cannot be believed that Ramkaran has accompanied Raichand at that point of time and, therefore, the entire evidence regarding the planned murder falls down like a house of cards. It cannot be believed that Ramkaran has accompanied Raichand at that point of time and, therefore, the entire evidence regarding the planned murder falls down like a house of cards. It has been stated by P.W. 1 Gangabi-shan that he was grazing his herd of camels in the field of Panji, which has been cultivated by his father. It has come in the evidence of PW 4 Mamraj and PW 6 Ramchandra that this entire field was cultivated by Ramkaran It is admitted case of Gangabishan that he was grazing 10 camels in the field of Panji. He has next stated that while grazing the camels, he saw that his father accompanied by Raichand who was unarmed, were coming from the side of Dhani of Ramchandra. He further saw that Bhiyaram was armed with a Sella and Arjun-ram was armed with an iron pronged Jaiee and they were hiding themselves behind the Ker Bush. He also saw that accused Girdhari and Asuram were hiding behind the thorn fencing existing between the fields of Bhiyaram and Raichand. Asuram was armed with a Barchhi and Girdhari was armed with a lathi. As soon as they came near the place of the incident, all these persons got up from the place of their hiding and availed his father It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that some signal was given by Raichand and thereafter, these four persons came out of their respective places of hiding and opened an attack on the deceased. He has stated that all these four persons gave beating to his father while he was standing and later after he fell down. He then started crying and weeping and went towards his dhani. On hearing his cries first of all PW 3 Ramku. his mother, PW 4 his elder father Mamraj and PW 5 Mohanram, his uncle ran towards the scene of occurrence and when they were a bit away from the place of the occurrence, the accused-persons ran away from the spot. He has further stated that his cries were heard by PW 2 Shaitansingh and PW 6 Ramchandra also and they too, arrived at the spot. When they went near Ramkaran, they found that he was still alive but was breathing his last. He died after 1-2 minutes of their arrival. He has further stated that his cries were heard by PW 2 Shaitansingh and PW 6 Ramchandra also and they too, arrived at the spot. When they went near Ramkaran, they found that he was still alive but was breathing his last. He died after 1-2 minutes of their arrival. They tried to question him but he was unable to speak and soon after, he succumbed to his injuries. He is unable to say which accused inflicted injury on which part of the body of his father. PW 2 Shaitansingh, PW 3 Ramku, PW 4 Mamraj and PW 5 Mohanram have stated that on hearing the cries of Gangabishan they immediately started from their respective places. PW 2 Shaitansingh has stated that he was actually going on a bullock cart to fetch water to his dhani from the water-pond and in the way, he heard the cries and, therefore, he also started crying. He has however, admitted that he reached the place of occurrence after PW 3 Ramku, PW4 Mamraj and PW 5 Mohan ram reached there. PW 4 Mamraj and PW 5 Mohanram have stated that when they heard the cries of Gangabishan they were at the dhani of Ramkaran and from there, they alongwith PW 3 Mst. Ramku started together. It has been alleged that Mamraj was down with fever but still he ran. PW 6 Ramchandra has stated that he was in his dhani On hearing the cries of Gangabishan he too, started from his dhani to the place of occurrence but he could not observe the actual beating. When he was 50 Pawandas away from the place of occurrence, he saw the accused persons running towards their own dhanis. However, PW 2 Shaitansingh, PW 3 Ramku, PW 4 Mamraj and PW 5 Mohanram have stated that they on hearing the cries of Gangabishan went near the spot and when they were a bit away may be 5 or 15 pawandas they themselves saw the accused persons giving beating to Ramkaran As per them, Raichand did not indulge in actual beating but he was instigating these four accused persons to give beating to Ramkaran and not to leave him alive. 13. The learned lower court has believed the testimony of these witnesses and held that this evidence inspires confidence. 13. The learned lower court has believed the testimony of these witnesses and held that this evidence inspires confidence. As per the learned lower court, Gangabishan is an eye witness of the occurrence where as P.W. 2 Shaitansingh, P.W. 3 Ramku. P.W. 4 Mamraj and P.W. 5 Mohanram have seen a part of the occurrence. The accused persons ran away on seeing all these persons approaching the place of occurrence. The learned lower court has further believed that Ramchandra too came to the place of occurrence immediately. May be that he has not seen the actual occurrence but he has seen the accused-persons running from the place of occurrence. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-persons however, argued that the learned lower court seriously erred in relying on the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses who could never have seen the occurrence. He has stated that before we scrutinise the evidence of the eye witnesses, we may refer to the site plan prepared by PW. 7 Sharwanram, Investigating Officer. P.W. 7 Shrawanram has proved the site inspection memo Ex. P. 9 and site plan Ex. P.2. According to this site inspection memo the dhani of Ramkaran is situated at 300 Pawandas away from the place of occurrence. The dhani of Ramchandra is at a distance were of 250 pawandas from the place of occurrence. 3C0 Pawandas means 1500 feet meaning thereby 500 yards. As per PW. 8. Dr. Nathmal, only 12 external injuries on the person of Ramkaran meaning thereby that these four accused persons might have inflicted three injuries each on the person of the deceased. Gangabishan raised a hue and cry after the beating has actually started. Gangabishan has admitted in his statement that the blows were inflicted in a quick succession. 8. Dr. Nathmal, only 12 external injuries on the person of Ramkaran meaning thereby that these four accused persons might have inflicted three injuries each on the person of the deceased. Gangabishan raised a hue and cry after the beating has actually started. Gangabishan has admitted in his statement that the blows were inflicted in a quick succession. Landing of three blows by each accused can hardly take half a minute or a minute and therefore, even if Gangabishan raised a hue and cry which may be admitted for the sake of the argument, was heard by these persons in the dhani and they ran immediately on hearing the cries of Gangabishan, then too, they could not have seen the occurrence at all because covering a distance of about 500 yards by a lady and by Mamraj who was down with fever will certainly take at least 8 to 10 minutes and, therefore, it is unbelievable that these persons have or could have seen the occurrence at all. Shaitansingh has admitted that he reached the place of occurrence after these persons which means that he was even more than 300 pawandas away from the place of occurrence and, therefore, it was impossible for him to have seen the occurrence. P.W. 6 Ramchandra has not seen the occurrence. Dr. Bhandawat appearing for the State has admitted that in this case, the way in which the occurrence has taken place and the manner in which the alleged eye witness P.W. 1 Gangabishan has related the entire incident, it was not possible for P. W. 2 Shaitansingh, P.W. 3 Ramku, P. W. 4 Mamraj, P.W. 5 Mohanram and P.W. 6 Ramchandra to have seen the occurrence or for that matter the actual beating. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that Gangabishan has stated that on seeing this beating being given to his father, he cried from the field of Panji and then went towards his dhani., but later returned with these persons to the place of occurrence. However, P.W.2 Shaitansingh, P.W.3 Ramku and P. W. 5 Mohanram and P. W. 6 Ramchandra have categorically stated that this boy did not go towards the dhani and when they reached the place of occurrence, he was sitting by the side of Ramkaran. However, P.W.2 Shaitansingh, P.W.3 Ramku and P. W. 5 Mohanram and P. W. 6 Ramchandra have categorically stated that this boy did not go towards the dhani and when they reached the place of occurrence, he was sitting by the side of Ramkaran. P.W. 4 Mamraj has, however, stated that the boy did cover some distance towards the dhani and later when they came towards the place of incident, he too came with him at the place of occurrence. If these witnesses have actually seen the occurrence, such a material contradiction could never have crept into their evidence. None of the witnesses who have seen the occurrence are able to particularise even one single blow inflicted by any of the accused persons on the body of the deceased. The evidence regarding beating is omnibus that all persons except Raichand gave beating to Ramkaran. If they have seen the occurrence, at least they could have particularised some of the blows which were seen by them to have been inflicted by these accused persons on the body of Ramkaran but they have categorically admitted that they simple cannot say as to which particular injury on which part of the body of Ramkaran was inflicted by which accused. This clearly go to show that they are cooked up witnesses and have not seen the occurrence. As per P. W. 4 Mamraj, the field of Raichand is measuring 47 bighas and the field of Panji which was cultivated by Ramkaran is measuring 70 bighas. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 5 Mohanram that when the Investigating Officer Shrawan Kumar arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the site at 8 A.M. on the next day, P.W. 1 Gangabishan, P.VV.2 Shaitan Singh were present at the spot. P.W.3 Mst. Ramku has also stated that Ramchandra and Shaitansingh stayed there in the night, although P.W. 2 Shaitansingh has stated that he only stayed there for a few minutes and after he left the place of occurrence, he did not returned back but all other witnesses have stated that he was present when the site was inspected alongwith Gangabishan. P.W. 7 Shrawankumar was specifically questioned about the fact that why he did not pin-point the places from where these persons have seen the occurrence. P.W. 7 Shrawankumar was specifically questioned about the fact that why he did not pin-point the places from where these persons have seen the occurrence. So far Ramku, Mamraj and Mohanram are concerned, they were in the dhani of Ramkaran and that dhani is 300 pawandas away from the place of occurrence. P.W. 6 Ramchandra has stated that he was in his own dhani and that is situated at a distance of 250 pawandas from the place of occurrence. P.W. 7 Shrawankumar has admitted that he has recorded this distance after actually measuring it and, therefore, there cannot be any mistake about the distance so far as these two places where these four witnesses were present at the time of the incident. However, P.W. 2 Shaitansingh has stated that he was on the way and P.W. 1 has stated that he was in the field of Panji. Here too, the testimony of these two witnesses is contradictory. Shaitansingh has stated that Gangabishan was standing in the field of Raichand at the time of the occurrence. He was standing in the east of the thorn fencing existing between the fields of Panji and Raichand but Gangabishan has categorically stated that he was in his own field and he never entered the field of Raichand, before his parents arrived at the place of the occurrence. This contradiction further makes their testimony doubtful as to the place from where Gangabishan has witnessed the occurrence. When they were present at the spot, when the site was inspected it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to point out the places from where these witnesses have seen the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to point out the places from where these witnesses have seen the occurrence. This omission assumes great importance in the light of the fact that field of Raichand consists of 47 bighas and the field of Panji is spread in 70 bighas and so with this vast area without pin-pointing the place from where Gangabishan and Shaitansingh have seen the occurrence it is difficult to hold that they were at all in a position to witness the occurrence. 16. Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Gangabishan was a child of 12 years at the time of the occurrence. There is no earthly reason for the prosecution to introduce him as a false witness. According to the Dr. 16. Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Gangabishan was a child of 12 years at the time of the occurrence. There is no earthly reason for the prosecution to introduce him as a false witness. According to the Dr. Bhandawat, if the prosecution wanted to cook-up false witnesses, it could have selected Mamraj and Mohan Ram for that purpose. The learned counsel for the appellant immediately controverted this argument by asserting that the reason why Gangabishan was selected as a false witness is not far to seek. If Mamraj and Mohanram were introduced as eye witnesses it would have become essential for them to intervene in the fighting and to have received injuries in the process because their brother was being beaten and so, they could not have observed the occurrence as silent spectators. To gain credence with the Court, this was the only natural course of events if they were introduced as eye witnesses. As they had no injuries, they could not have been introduced as eye witnesses of the occurrence as in absence of injuries no body could have believed them. Actually this was the reason why these witnesses were not introduced as false witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution had no choice but to introduce a boy of 12 years as an eye witness of the occurrence to gain credence before a court of law about this story put forth by them. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that he cannot dispute that Ramkaran has been killed but who has killed him is a million doller question and at least, these witnesses have not seen the occurrence and so, they are unable to answer this question. Developing this argument further, he has submitted that the fact that these alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence have or could not have seen the occurrence is very strongly established from the fact that even the occurrence has not taken place at the time it is alleged to have taken place by these witnesses. He submitted that PW 8 Dr. Nathmal has stated that when he conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Ramkaran, he found chyme in the stomach of the deceased. According to the Doctor, the deceased must have taken his meals between 4 to 8 hours of this incident. He submitted that PW 8 Dr. Nathmal has stated that when he conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Ramkaran, he found chyme in the stomach of the deceased. According to the Doctor, the deceased must have taken his meals between 4 to 8 hours of this incident. PW 6 Ramchandra has categorically stated that when Ramkaran came to his dhani at about 3 P.M. he took his meals. Thereafter, he went for siesta. All these eye witnesses have stated that this occurrence has taken place at 4 pm. Thus, all these witnesses who have stated that the occurrence took place at 4 P.M. cannot be believed on the strength of the evidence of their own witness PW 8 Dr. Nathmal. Chyme is the last stage of digestion of food in the stomach which means that it is now ready to enter duodenum and small intestines which as per Dr. Nathmal at least takes 4 to 8 hours. PW 6 Ramchandra has categorically stated that the deceased took his meals at 3 P.M. at his dhani and so under no circumstances, this occurrence could have taken place at 4 P.M. and so, as per Mr. Kumbhatt, all these alleged eye witnesses are naturally false & cooked up witnesses. 17. We have carefully considered these submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties. We are firmly of the view that the evidence of motive does not fit in the scheme of the crime. When the accused persons themselves have called the Panchayat and the matter was amicably settled, no grouse remained with the accused-persons to have killed Ramkaran and that too, for such a petty matter. The pretext put forth by the prosecution which persuaded Ramkaran to accompany Raichand to his field cannot stand to reason. Dr. Bhandawat has admitted that except Gangabishan nobody has seen the occurrence. Rather they were not in a position to observe the occurrence. The testimony of Gangabishan cannot be relied upon because firstly the place from where he has seen the occurrence has not been specified and secondly when he has seen these accused persons armed with such deadly weapons, he could have raised a hue & cry to warn his father that these accused persons were hiding there with these deadly weapons. According to the report of the Dr. According to the report of the Dr. Nathmal, the occurrence has not taken place at 4 P.M. This is another very material circumstance which proved that this occurrence has not taken place at 4 P.M. The very story that Gangabishan was grazing his camels in the field of Panji appears to be suspicious because when the entire field has been cultivated and the crop was standing therein, how could any body graze a herd of 10 camels in a fully cultivated field. Moreover, it is said that Arjunram was armed with an iron pronged Jaiee but there is no punctured wound found on the person of the deceased. It appears that Jaiee has not been used. It has also been stated at the trial that Girdhari was armed with a Barchhi but in the F.I.R., which was got recorded by PW 5 Mohanram at the instance of PW 1 Gangabishan, he has got it recorded that Girdhari was armed with a lathi. Girdhari being armed with a Barchhi has been an improvement made at the trial. Actually, the deceased had one sickle shaped injury and, therefore, one of the assailants must have been armed with sickle but no witness has stated that any body was armed with a sickle and thus, the entire story put forth by the prosecution does not sound credible and does not have a ring of truthfulness around it. We are therefore, persuaded to hold that the occurrence has not taken place in the way it has been alleged by the eye witness of the occurrence. The accused-persons, therefore, deserve the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. 18. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated November 12, 1980 and acquit accused Bhiya-ram, Arjunram, Girdhari and Asuram of all the offences alleged to have been proved against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner. Raichand has already died. Had he not died, he too deserves acquittal so far as this case is concerned. Accused Bhiyaram, Arjunram, Asuram and Girdhari are in Jail, they should be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.