M. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Babulal Choudhary, who on his conviction under section 307 of the I. P. C. , has been sentenced to six years RI. and also to pay the fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo one years RI. ( 2 ) COMPLAINANT P. W. 1 Smt. Chandrakalabai is the daughter-in-law of the appellant accused. P. W. 2 Narendra Kumar aged 20 years is Smt. Chandrakalabais real brother, who used to live with Smt. Chandrakalabai and her husband Pooran, in their house at Ranjhi at the relevant time. Narendra Kumar, during the relevant period, was employed as a servant at the shop of Seth Brothers, who were dealing with ready-made garments in the shop at Sadar Bazar, Jabalpur. The house in which Smt. Chandrakalabai and her husband and so also Smt. Chandrakalabais brother Narendra Kumar lived comprised of only one room and one verandah (Parchhi), the room having exits with one door in front and one door at the back. A shallow well is situated about 3 to 4 feet from the back door of the room. The well had a parapet which, however, was at the level of the Babulal Choudhary Vs. The State of M. P. IMPORTANT POINT Where inculpating evidence of the eye-witnesses is highly interested and embellished it is not at all trustworthy. ground only. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Proprietor of Seth Brothers suspecting that his servant P. W. 2 Narendra Kumar was committing theft of ready-made garments from his shop, had sent other servant P. W. 3 Gautam to Chandrakalabais house where her brother Narendra Kumar did live, to search and find out whether any stolen goods of the shop were there or not. Gautam (P. W. 3) accompanied with the appellant-accused and two or three other persons had come to Smt. Chandrakalabais house. No stolen garments were found in any of the boxes of Narendra Kumar. The appellant-accused was stated to have abused Narendra Kumar and to have brought out Narendra Kumar from the back door of the room by pushing him and then to have further pushed him in the well close-by. Narendra Kumar was taken out from the well with some injuries on his person and Smt. Cnandrakalabai mean while lodged the report quite immediately at the Police Station Ranjhi. Narendra Kumar was taken out from the well with some injuries on his person and Smt. Cnandrakalabai mean while lodged the report quite immediately at the Police Station Ranjhi. Injuries were examined and after due investigation, the appellant-accused was put up for trial under section 307 I. P. C. The appellant-accused claimed to be innocent and denied to have pushed Narendra Kumar in the well. No evidence were adduced in defence. ( 4 ) THE trial Court principally on the oral testimonies of P. W. 1 Smt. Chandrakalabai and her brother P. W. 2 Narendra Kumar corroborated by Smt. Chandrakalabais prompt FIR and the injury report (Ex. P-3) prepared by P. W. 5 Dr. Sharma, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, the present appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has urged that the evidence of Mst. Chandrakalabai and Narendra Kumar does not deserve reliance in the absence of any corroborative evidence of independent nature which though available was not adduced. It is further stated that their oral testimonies are rendered untrustworthy because of mutual contradictions on material points and also inconsistencies with Mst. Chandrakalabais FIR (Ex. P-i) and her earlier police statement (Ex. D. i ). Anyway, even accepting the appellant-accuseds participation in the incident, it is vehemently argued that there being no intention to kill and there being no deliberate push to Narendra Kumar, the offence at worst that could be made out would be under section 323 of the I. P. C. only and as such in the matter of sentence, it is argued that the appellant-accused being the first offender and being an employee of Gun Carriage Factory, deserves to be released on probation of good conduct because in case of the sentence or imprisonment he is likely to lose his permanent job. ( 6 ) I have scrutinized the evidence on record in the light of arguments pressed. Independent witness P. W. 3 Gautam is found to be declared hostile. He has told that all along, he had been standing in front of the house of Narendra Kumar and Mst. Chandrakalabai and had never gone inside and therefore, he did not know as to what happened inside their house or at the back portion of the house. Independent witness P. W. 3 Gautam is found to be declared hostile. He has told that all along, he had been standing in front of the house of Narendra Kumar and Mst. Chandrakalabai and had never gone inside and therefore, he did not know as to what happened inside their house or at the back portion of the house. The only material evidence in the case is of P. W. 1 Smt. Chandrakalabai and P. W. 2 Narendra Kumar. On scrutiny of their evidence, there are not only mutual contradictions of material nature in their averments but there are also inconsistencies in their averment in Court when judged in the light of the FIR (Ex. P1) and police statement (Ex. Di ). It may be stated, after scrutiny of Smt. Chandrakalabais oral testimony and her earlier police statement that it is highly doubtful whether she had really seen the appellant accused pushing Narendra Kumar in the well. In her statement in Court, he has deposed that after the search the appellant-accused had not only abused her brother Narendra Kumar but had also beaten him. The factum of beating is neither stated in the FIR nor her earlier statement. ( 7 ) THEN again, in her examination-in-chief, Mst. Chandrakalabai has deposed that the appellant-accused bad taken her brother Narendra Kumar at the back of room towards the well. Contrary to this, in her police statement as well as in the FIR what has been stated in the fact that the appellant-accused after abusing bad at first took Narendra Kumar out of room through the back door and then had given another push which led to Narendra Kumars fall in the well. In the cross- examination (para 6), ,the factum of pushing to Narendra Kumar in the well by the appellant-accused after taking him from inside the room through the back door is not at all mentioned. On the contrary, it is mentioned that Narendra Kumar himself had at first come out from the back door followed by the appellant-accused from the said door. On the contrary, it is mentioned that Narendra Kumar himself had at first come out from the back door followed by the appellant-accused from the said door. Then again, she has deposed in her cross-examination that when no stolen property was found in the house and when the appellant-accused had started abusing Narendra Kumar, she bad asked Narendra Kumar to go to the Police Station to lodge the report and it was for this purpose that Narendra Kumar was coming out of the house from the back door. This fact regarding the intention to lodge the report is neither mentioned in the FIR nor in her earlier police statement, with which she is found to be confronted. The fact that Narendra Kumar had himself come out from the back door with intent to lodge the report is found to be mentioned in para 3 of Narendra Kumars oral testimony. Such a statement which as earlier stated is not mentioned in Chandrakalabais FIR or her statement. The basic fact that the appellant-accused had himself brought out Narendra Kumar from inside the house from the back door by giving him continuous push is believed. Narendra Kumar has also stated that inside the house, after the search when no stolen property was recovered the appellant-accused had beaten him with slaps and fists resulting in injuries on his cheeks and back region. According to his version the appellant accused had blocked his way when he was trying to come out from inside the house through the front door for lodging the police report. Had his sister Smt Chandcakalabai been the eye-witness of the incident she would have positively stated about this in her FIR as well as in earlier police statement but no such fact is found Narendra Kumars version also shows that he had tried to come out from the back door when the front door was blocked by the appellant accused Smt. Chandrakalabais FIR and the oral testimony do not speak about it at all. It is obvious thit the oral testimonies of both Mst. Chandrakalabai and Narendra Kumar are sufficiently embellished and equally concocted. ( 8 ) NARENDRA Kumar as P. W. 2 has stated in his cross-examination that he himself had not seen the appellant-accused pushing him down in the well. It is obvious thit the oral testimonies of both Mst. Chandrakalabai and Narendra Kumar are sufficiently embellished and equally concocted. ( 8 ) NARENDRA Kumar as P. W. 2 has stated in his cross-examination that he himself had not seen the appellant-accused pushing him down in the well. Later, however, he bas improved his version by deposing that he had recognized Babulal when he bad turned back and seen the appellant-accused running towards him (Paras 6 and 7 P. W. 2 ). What is more pertinent is the fact that this witness Narendra Kumar who is alleged to be the victim of the incident has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that when he bad been pushed in the well, only the appellant-accused Babulal was there on his back side and none other. His positive statement is that at the relevant time when he was pushed in the well, her sister was inside the room (para 6 P. W. 2 ). Contrary to his version, his sister P. W. 1 Chandrakalabai has deposed that when her brother Narendra had been pushed in the well by the appellant-accused, she was standing at the relevant time just behind the appellant-accused. Her such statement runs counter to Narendra Kumars version. Such fact also does not find mention in the FIR or in the earlier police statement of Chandrakalabai. Considering the inconsistencies in these two material statements and the further inconsistencies in Mst. Chandrakalabais FIR and earlier police statement, I am clearly of the view that the story regarding the push in the well by the appellant-accused is a sheer concoction. The possibility cannot be ruled out and is actually very much there that Narendra Kumar while rushing out and running from inside the room through the back door might have himself slipped near the well and fallen down in the well, inasmuch as the parapet of the well which was close to the back door of the room was not at all high and was even with the level of the ground. Thus, disagreeing with the reasoning of the trial Court, I am of the view that the whole story of prosecution against the appellant- accused in the matter of the offence in question is highly embellished and concocted and inculpating evidence of both Mst. Chandrakalarai and Narendra Kumar being highly interested and embellished is not at all trustworthy. Thus, disagreeing with the reasoning of the trial Court, I am of the view that the whole story of prosecution against the appellant- accused in the matter of the offence in question is highly embellished and concocted and inculpating evidence of both Mst. Chandrakalarai and Narendra Kumar being highly interested and embellished is not at all trustworthy. The appellant- accused therefore in face of such conflicting and mutually contradictory evidence, deserves to be acquitted of the offence in question. ( 9 ) IN the result, thus, the accuseds appeal is allowed. Setting aside the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court, it is ordered that he be and is acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellant accused who is in jail be released forthwith if no longer required in any other case. Appeal allowed. .