JUDGMENT 1. The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 103/83 and he found them guilty and convicted them as under:-Birdhi Lal - u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, u/s 307/149 IPC to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment; u/s 307 IPC sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further 3 months RI; u/s 323/149 IPC to 3 months RI and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months imprisonment; u/s 324/149 IPC and sentenced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months imprisonment. Ram Prasad, Mukat Behari, Ganesh and Kalu: - u/s 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; u/s 307/149 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' RI; u/s 323/149 IPC and sentenced to three months' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months imprisonment and u/s 327/149 IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's SI. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. According to the prosecution story Gopal Lal S/o Birdhi Lal lodged a verbal report at Police Station, Cooperation on 7-9-83 at 9.30 a m. which is Ex. P 1. According to this report Satya Narain S/o Shiv Karan was going to Kota for his studies and when he reached near the station Copren, Kalu Lal master and his wife met him. Kalu Lal told Satya Narain that why did he beat Birdhi Lal, his brother. Satya Narain told that he had beaten his brother Ram Prasad. Thereafter a fight started between Kalu and his wife on one side and Satya Narain on the other side. Satya Narain was beaten by Kalu and his wife with stones. When this information about beating of Satya Narain reached to his father, Shiv Karan, he started and went towards Railway Station to see Satya Narain. Thereafter a fight started between Kalu and his wife on one side and Satya Narain on the other side. Satya Narain was beaten by Kalu and his wife with stones. When this information about beating of Satya Narain reached to his father, Shiv Karan, he started and went towards Railway Station to see Satya Narain. Behind him Bhanwar Lal, Ramesh and Ram Prasad also ran towards Railway Station. On the way to Railway Station in the field of Mangi Lal S/o Onkar Meena, came across Ganesh, Paras Ram, Mukat Behari, Kalu, Birdhi. Prabhu, Ambba and Chhagana all armed with lathi's, gandasies and axe. All these persons had a common object to beat Bhanwar Lal, Ramesh and Ram Prasad and with that object they formed an unlawful assembly. The accused persons beat Bhanwer Lal Ramesh and Ram Prasad with the weapons they had in their hands and when Shiv Karan returned from the station he was also beaten by then with lathies, gandasie and axe. The informant came to the village after manuring his field and he was informed by his elder brother that all the brothers have been beaten and they are lying in the field. He along with his mother came to the place of occurrence and saw the condition of the injured and with the help of Brij Mohan and Raghunandan brought all the injured persons in the held (khaityan) and from where they were brought to Coven Hospital in a tractor trolley. The condition of all the four injured persons was serious. Brij Mohan and Raghunandan were present at the time of occurrence who told him that they were beaten by Genesh. Mukat Behari, Paras, Ram Kalu, Birdhi Lal Prabhu, Chhagna and Ambba with lathies, gandasies and axe. It was also alleged that there was enmity between the parties due to some land dispute. 4. On this report a case was registered at the Police Station u/s 147,148, 149, 307, 326, 324 and 323 IPC and investigation started. During investigation Bhanwar Lal succumbed to the injuries and Section 302 IPC was added in the case. After completing usual investigation a challan was submitted against the accused appellant along with Ambba Lal, Chhanna and Prabhu Lal the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bundi who committed them to the court of Sessions Judge Bundi. 5. During investigation Bhanwar Lal succumbed to the injuries and Section 302 IPC was added in the case. After completing usual investigation a challan was submitted against the accused appellant along with Ambba Lal, Chhanna and Prabhu Lal the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bundi who committed them to the court of Sessions Judge Bundi. 5. The Sections Judge, Bundi framed charges against all the accused persons u/s 147, 148. 307, 307/149, 302 and 302 ahead with 149 IPC. All the accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution to prove its case has examined 15 witnesses. The accused persons also examined 8 witnesses in their defence After completing trial and hearing both the parties the learned sessions Judge found that no case is made out against Ambba Lal, Prabhu and Chhagan and he acquitted them from all the charges levelled against them. However, he found guilty the appellants for the offences and sentenced as mentioned above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are near relatives. Ramesh. PW 2 Ram Prasad, PW 3, are the brothers of deceased Bhanwar Lal, Gopal, PW 1, Shiv Karan, PW 4 and Brij Mohan, PW 5 are real cousins of deceased Bhanwar Lal while Satya Narain, PW 6 is the son of Shiv Karan PW 4. The prosecution has examined only near relatives. They are interested witnesses and should not be believed at all. It was also argued that according to the prosecution there were other persons namely : Babu Lal, Rameshwar, Raghu Nandan & Ram Narain who had witnessed the occurrence and were independent witnesses but the prosecution has not examined any of them thus the best witnesses in this case were not examined while only interested and near relatives were examined, so an adverse should be drawn against the prosecution for not examining material witnesses and for that interested relatives should not be relied at all. It was also argued that the statements of these relative witnesses are unbelievable, untrustworthy and incredible. They have contradicted their statements given during investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that on the side of accused persons received injuries. Their injuries have been proved by the doctor. How the accused persons received these injuries, has not been explained by the prosecution. They have contradicted their statements given during investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that on the side of accused persons received injuries. Their injuries have been proved by the doctor. How the accused persons received these injuries, has not been explained by the prosecution. It was also argued that the dispute according to the prosecution arose on account of beating to Satya Narain by Kalu and his wife Gogri, Satya Narain has also lodged a report at the Police Station and he was also medically examined but no report filed by Satya Narain as has been produced by the prosecution No injury report of Satya Narain has been produced. Thus this non-production of FIR and injury report of Satya Narain falsifies the prosecution story. It was also argued that the injured Ramesh Ram Prasad and Shiv Karan came to the field of Mangi Lal where the accused persons were working & they beat Birdhi Lal, Ram Prasad, Mukat Behari and Mst. Gogri. 7. The learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and argued that the case against the accused appellants has been fully established and they have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal of the appellants according to the learned public prosecutor has no force. 8. We have examined the entire prosecution evidence and also perused the record of the case. We will discuss the entire evidence later on. 9. It has not been disputed by both the parties that Bhanwar Lal died on account of injuries received by him. Gopal Lal. PW 1, has stated that he brought all the injured persons including Bhanwar Lal from the place of occurrence to hospital where Bhanwar Lal succumbed to his injuries. He had injuries on his head, on his left arm and on his back Doctor Surender Singh PW 13, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Bhanwar Lal has stated, in his statement, that Bhanwar Lal had two external injuries on his body. Injury no. 1 was incised wound on left parietal and occipital region above the base of the skull. The second injury was also incised wound situated on lateral aspect of left forearm. On internal examination he found the following:- (1) Scalp skull bones (vertex):- Lt parietal and occipital bone cut at the site of incised wound on scalp. Injury no. 1 was incised wound on left parietal and occipital region above the base of the skull. The second injury was also incised wound situated on lateral aspect of left forearm. On internal examination he found the following:- (1) Scalp skull bones (vertex):- Lt parietal and occipital bone cut at the site of incised wound on scalp. (2) Membranes:- Congested and cut at the site of wound (3) Brain at the site of wound left cerebral hemisphere comes out and lacerated. According to doctor the heart was congested, right side of the heart was empty - left side of the heart filled with blood. 10. The doctor opined that the cause of death was extensive brain injury leading to haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock and ultimately resulted in his death. He opined that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause dearth. Thus, there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of this doctor. The injury no 1. was incised wound caused by sharp weapon and this resulted in his death, therefore, the death of Bhanwar Lal was homicidal in nature. It is therefore, clear that Bhanwar Lal died on account of this head injury hence the death of Bhanwar Lal was homicidal in nature. 11. We have mentioned above that all the prosecution witnesses are very near relative and they are interested one. It is no ground to reject the testimony of these witnesses simply on the ground that they near relatives and interested witnesses. The testimony of theses interested and near relatives witnesses should be scrutinised carefully. Hence w e have looked into the statements of these interested and relative witnesses minutely. 12. According to report Ex. P 1. this occurrence can be divided into two parts. The first part of this occurrence was at 7 a.m. near the Railway Station, when Satya Narain was going to Kota. The second part of this occurrence is at about 8 a.m. in the field of Mangi Lal. Thus at the time of second part of the occurrence Bhanwar Lal and other members of the complainant party were beaten at 8 a m. in the field of Mangi Lal. Thus the incident which took place at 7 a.m. near the Railway Station, Kopren is a separate incident. We would examine the first part of this occurrence. 13. In the report Ex. Thus the incident which took place at 7 a.m. near the Railway Station, Kopren is a separate incident. We would examine the first part of this occurrence. 13. In the report Ex. PI, Gopal Lal PW 1, has alleged that in the morning at 7 a m. Satya Narain S/o Shiv Karan was going to Kota for his studies and he reached near the canal at Railway Station, Kopren, Kalu Lal and his wife met him and both of them beat Satya Narain. In the court statement, Gopal Lal PW 1, has deposed about the second part of this occurrence which took place in the field of Mangi Lal. He has not stated anything about the incident which took place with Satya Narain at Railway Station, Kopren. Satya Narain PW 6, has stated that he was going to Kota at 7 a.m. when at the canal Gogri and Kalu met him. Kalu Lal told him that why he beat his brother and at this he told Kalu Lal that he also beat his brother. Then a fight took place and both inflicted injuries to each other. He was rescued by Ramswaroop and Brij Mohan. He asked Brij Mohan to inform about this beating to his father and he went away to Police Station, Kopren. In the cross-examination he has stated that he asked Brij Mohan to send his father at Police Station, Kopren as he is going there. He lodged a report at the Police Station, he also got medically examined his injuries He reached at Police Station at 8 a.m. and lodged a report then his father came at Police Station. In the next breath he has stated that his father came at hospital where he met him and there he saw injuries on the body of his father. Thus, according to Satya Narain he was beaten by Kalu and Gogri. He lodged a report and got his injuries medically examined But no report has been submitted. There is no proof on the record that he was medically examined and he received injuries also. Shubh Karan, PW 15, in the cross-examination, has stated admitted that Satya Narain lodged a report at the police station at 8 a m. As the case was non-cognizable offence so he asked Satya Narain to complain in the court directly. It means that Satya Narain lodged a report. Shubh Karan, PW 15, in the cross-examination, has stated admitted that Satya Narain lodged a report at the police station at 8 a m. As the case was non-cognizable offence so he asked Satya Narain to complain in the court directly. It means that Satya Narain lodged a report. Whether the incident which took place with Satya Narain is correct or not could be proved by the prosecution by producing the copy of the report of the Roj Namcha' which was lodged by Satya Narain. Satya Narain received injuries and for this his medical report should have been submitted. He got his injuries examined by the doctor. The injury report as well as the police report of Satya Narain could have proved the condition of Satya Narain and could have corroborated it. Non-producing of these material documents proved that the story as alleged by Satya Narain is a false story. It is incorrect that Satya Narain was going to Kota at 7 a.m. and he was beaten by Kalu Lal and Gogri. Apart from this Brij Mohan and Ramswaroop are the eye-witnesses to this first part of this incident i.e beating to Satya Narain. Satya Narain requested Brij Mohan to inform this fact to his father, hence Ramswaroop and Brij Mohan are most material witnesses. Ramswaroop has not been examined. Brij Mohan has been examined who is, PW 5. He has stated that in the morning at 7 a.m. he was working in his field when he heard about the fight between Kalu and his wife on one side and his cousin brother on another side. Babulal Teli called him that there was fighting and they be separated. He and Ramswaroop both came to the spot and separated them. Satyanarain told him to inform his father. He came to the village and informed the father of Satya Narain about this beating. This witness Brij Mohan is the cousin brother of deceased Bhanwar Lal so he is an interested witness. Babulal Teli and Ramswaroop are two independent witnesses who were with Brij Mohan. They also witnessed the occurrence of beating of Satya Narain, both Babulal and Ramswaroop had not been examined. No explanation has been given by the learned public prosecutor for not examining these two independent witnesses. In the cross examination, Brij Mohan has stated that he was examined by the police during investigation after 5-7 days of this occurrence. They also witnessed the occurrence of beating of Satya Narain, both Babulal and Ramswaroop had not been examined. No explanation has been given by the learned public prosecutor for not examining these two independent witnesses. In the cross examination, Brij Mohan has stated that he was examined by the police during investigation after 5-7 days of this occurrence. The APP was asked to produce the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. after 5 or 7 days. The APP submitted to the court that his statement was recorded on 16-10-83 that is after 11/4 month. So the statement of Brij Mohan that he was examined after 5-7 days of this incident is a false statement. He was examined after 11/4 months of the occurrence. He is the only witness to the first part of the occurrence i.e. about the beating of Satya Narain. He informed the father of Satya Narain about the beating so he could have been examined by the police immediately. Why he was examined after 11/4 months has not been explained by the learned public prosecutor. This non-examination of a material witness u/s 161 Cr. P.C. immediately is fatal to the prosecution story. 14. In AIR 1979 SC 135 , Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another, appellants v. State of Maharashtra , it has been observed by their Lordships as under:- "Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye-witnesses may nor, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicions on the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 1970, D/- 2/4-12-1972 (Bom), Reversed. Normally, in a case where the commission of the crime is alleged to have been seen by witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigator would give to the examination of such witnesses precedence over the evidence of other witnesses." 15. The witness Brij Mohan, PW5, is cousin of deceased Bhanwar Lal. He was available in the village. He should have been examined by the Investigating Officer. The witness Brij Mohan, PW5, is cousin of deceased Bhanwar Lal. He was available in the village. He should have been examined by the Investigating Officer. Immediately after the occurrence. Why he was not examined for such a long period and after 11/4 month he was examined by the Investigating Officer. This shows that he is made out witness and the story of beating of Satya Narain has been falsely concocted. Brij Mohan, in the cross-examination, has stated that first of all he came to the field and informed Ram Narain that Satya Narain has been beaten and Ramnarain told to Shiv Karan father of Satya Narain. He has stated that he did not tell to Shiv Karan about the beating of Satya Narain. When he was confronted with the court statement where he has stated that he told Shiv Karan father of Satya Narain about the beating of Satya Narain. He replied that this statement is incorrect. How to place reliance on such witness who disowned his own statement. At one time he said that he told Shiv Karan that Satya Narain was beaten and in the cross-examination he says that he did not tell Shiv Karan about this beating but he told to Ram Narain. This Ram Aram has not been examined by the prosecution, so there is no corroboration to the statement of Brij Mohan. It was the duty of the prosecution to examine Ramnarain who informed Shiv Karan about beating to Satyanarain. Shivkaran, PW4, says that Brij Mohan informed him that Satya Narain is lying unconscious at the canal, this is also false statement because Brij Mohan says that he did not inform Shiv Karan Shivkaran came to canal and he did not find Satyanarain there. He has not stated that he then went to police station. In the cross-examination he has stated that when Brij Mohan informed him about Satyanarain beating, nobody was present. He, however, stated that he was informed at the canal that Satyanarain had gone to police station but he has not stated that he went to police station. This shows that Brij Mohan is a false witness. Shivkaran is also an unreliable witness. Both Shivkaran and Brij Mohan had concocted in story about beating of Satyanarain. The independent witnesses Ramswaroop, Ramnarain and Babulal have not been examined. Therefore, we place no reliance on the statement of Brij Mohan, PW5. This shows that Brij Mohan is a false witness. Shivkaran is also an unreliable witness. Both Shivkaran and Brij Mohan had concocted in story about beating of Satyanarain. The independent witnesses Ramswaroop, Ramnarain and Babulal have not been examined. Therefore, we place no reliance on the statement of Brij Mohan, PW5. Thus, after scrutinising the evidence with regard to first part of this occurrence which took place at 7 a.m., we are of this opinion, that the entire story is a concocted story and the prosecution has failed to prove that Satya Narain was beaten by Kalulal and Gogri at canal near Railway Station, Kopren in the morning at 7 a.m. 16. Now we will examine the second part of the occurrence which took place at 8 a.m. in the field of Mangilal. 17. Gopal Lal, PW 1, who lodged the report Ex.P 1, has stated, in his statement, that he was working in his field and when he came to his house he was informed that the accused persons had beaten his relatives. He along with other family members came to the field of Mangi Lal and he saw that Bhanwar Lal, Ram Prasad, Ramesh and Shiv Karan were lying there injured. Bhanwar Lal was taking his last breath, he, Raghunandan and Brij Mohan brought them to the Khaliyan. Brij Mohan and Raghunandan told him that they were beaten by Ganesh, Birdhi Lal. Ram Prasad, Kalu, Mukat, Chhagan, Prabhu and Amba Lal by lathies, gandasies and axe so according to his statement he was not an eye-witness to this beating. He was told by Brij Mohan and Raghunandan that they were beaten. He has not stated that as to who had informed the family members about this beating. A vague statement that he was informed by his family members about this beating is unbelievable. He should have given the source of this information, he came to this place of occurrence where Brij Mohan and Raghunandan informed him but how he came to this place of occurrence is not known from his statement. He lodged the report at the police station which is Ex P. 1. In the cross examination he has stated that Satyanarain met him at police station where Satyanarain had lodged a report. Satyanarain has not stated like this. He lodged the report at the police station which is Ex P. 1. In the cross examination he has stated that Satyanarain met him at police station where Satyanarain had lodged a report. Satyanarain has not stated like this. He has not stated that Gopal Lal met him at Police Station but according to him, his father Shiv Karan met him at Police Station. This shows that this witness Gopal Lal is also an unreliable witness. In the report Ex. P. 1, he alleged that there was no enmity between him and the accused persons with regard to agriculture land but in the court statement he has stated that there was enmity. There was no dispute about land, so on such insignificant matter this witness has given false statement. No reliance can be placed on such witness. 18. Ramesh, PW 2 has stated that he was working in his field where his sister Galta Bai came to him and informed that Satya Narain has been beaten. He Ram Prasad and Bhanwar Lal went running towards that place where Satya Narain was beaten. The accused persons armed with weapons were at at the field of Mangi Lal. Birdhi Lal accused inflicted axe blows on his neck. Ganesh, Mukat and Kalu inflicted blows on his head and then he fell down and became unconscious. He could not say specifically who beat him. Others also received injuries but he could not say who inflicted injuries to them. He has only stated that Bhanwar Lal died in the way while going to hospital. Thus according to this witness he did not see beating to Ram Prasad, Bhanwar Lal and Shiv Karan. He was first of all, beaten and he became unconscious. Thereafter he did not see what had happened with others, so he had no knowledge about beating to others as well as Bhanwar Lal deceased. In the cross-examination he has admitted that Mathura was also present at the place of occurrence, it means that Mathura had also seen the occurrence. According to him Mathura was all alone there, it means that only eye witness to this incident is Mathura but the prosecution has not examined this Mathura. He was very important witness who had seen the entire occurrence. According to him Mathura was all alone there, it means that only eye witness to this incident is Mathura but the prosecution has not examined this Mathura. He was very important witness who had seen the entire occurrence. Galta Bai had informed PW2, Ramesh about this beating, so Galta Bai was also an important witness but she was also not examined by the prosecution. Why Galta Bai and Mathura were suppressed by the prosecution Ramesh, PW 2, has no knowledge about this beating, he was only informed by Galta Bai, so Galta Bai was a very important witness. How she came to know about this beating could be deposed by her alone. Maihura was only present at the time of occurrence so he was also a very important witness. But both Galta bai and Mathura were not examined. No explanation has been given by the learned public prosecutor. It is well established principle that the witnesses who are important witnesses and who have knowledge about the fact must be examined, if they are not examined it reflects on the entire case of the prosecution. 19. In IIam Singh and others v. State of U.P., (1976) 4 SCC 356 their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "There is no explanation why the others were not examined. Of course, non-examination of some witnesses would not matter if the witnesses examined unfolded the prosecution case fully. But it is well established that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be examined." 20. In the present case the prosecution has examined only interested and relative witnesses. Their statement have been scrutinised and we found these witnesses most unreliable. The independent witnesses who could have unfolded the prosecution story have not been examined, so the non examination of these material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution and reflects that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted. 21. Another important aspect regarding Ramesh PW 2, is that his dying declaration was recorded by ASI in presence of the doctor on 7/9/83. In this statement, he has stated that he was beaten by Mukat Behari, Paras Ram Biidhi Lal and Kalu Lal with lathies and Kulaharies. He has stated that his brother was also beaten by these persons but he did not know about his beating. Ramesh PW 2, has contradicted with this statement Ex. In this statement, he has stated that he was beaten by Mukat Behari, Paras Ram Biidhi Lal and Kalu Lal with lathies and Kulaharies. He has stated that his brother was also beaten by these persons but he did not know about his beating. Ramesh PW 2, has contradicted with this statement Ex. D 3 and he had completely denied to have given this statement. He admits his signature on this Ex. D. 3 but he has denied totally in the cross-examination. He has also stated that he had not seen any injury on the body of Kalu; this is also a false statement. Kalu has been examined by the doctor and his injury report is Ex. D. 17. The X-ray report is Ex. D 15, which shows that Kalu had grievous injury. It is strange that even this witness Ramesh has stated that he has not seen any injury on the body of Kalu. Thus after scrutinising the entire statement of this PW 2, Ramesh, we are of this opinion that he is a Her and a witness who had concocted story. He has not deposed erroneously and truly in the court. No doubt, he also received injuries and his injury report is Ex. P 13 but the circumstances in which he received injuries is totally false one and he has not come with clean hand. We place no reliance on the statement of this witness. 22. Ram Prasad, PW 3, is also injured and his injury report is Ex. P 14. His dying declaration was also recorded by SHO in presence of doctor and that statement is Ex. D.4. He was also examined by the police under Section 161 Cr.PC and his statement is Ex. D 5. In the court statement he has denied the portions of the statement Ex. D 4 and D 5. 23. Ram Prasad has stated that he was working in his field. Ramesh and Bhanwar Lal were also in that field, his sister Galta Bai came to them and told that Satya Narain and Kalu were fighting at the canal. At this he, Bhanwar Lal and Ramesh ran towards canal and when they were near the field of Mangi Lal they were beaten by the accused persons. He has stated that Ramesh was first beaten then Bhanwar Lal came there and he was also beaten by Birdhi Lal with axe on his head. At this he, Bhanwar Lal and Ramesh ran towards canal and when they were near the field of Mangi Lal they were beaten by the accused persons. He has stated that Ramesh was first beaten then Bhanwar Lal came there and he was also beaten by Birdhi Lal with axe on his head. We have read the cross-examination. In the statement Ex. D. 4 he has stated that Parsa inflicted gandasi blow on his head, Birdhi inflicted axe blow on his left hand. Mukat inflicted Khunthia blow on his neck and Prabhu inflicted lathi blow. These persons also beat Bhanwar Lal but he could not say who inflicted blow at which part of the body but in the court he has denied to have given this statement Ex. D. 4. The portions mark A to B, C to D and E to F were read over to this witness and he has denied to have given this statement. He has also stated that he was not examined by the police. The statement Ex. D. 5, is the police statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and when he was confronted with portions A to B of Ex. D. 5, he has stated that whatever written in this portion is not correct. He has also stated that he did not see any injury to Kalu and Paras Ram @ Ram Prasad. The injury report of Kalu and Paras Ram are Ex. D. 14 and Ex. D. 9. These injuries have been proved by the doctor. Ram Prasad PW 3 has denied to have seen these injuries. As discussed above we feel that he is also an unreliable, and untrustworthy witness he is the real brother of Bhanwar Lal deceased who is very interested witness and looking to his statement we feel that he is not worth-reliable. 24. Shiv Karan PW 4, is cousin brother of deceased Bhanwar Lal. He is father of Satya Narain with whom the beating took place at 7 a.m. and according to the prosecution story Shiv Narain has stated that Brij Mohan informed him that Satya Narain has been beaten and he is lying at the canal. As we have mentioned above this fact is falsified by the statement of Brij Mohan who has stated that he did not tell to Shiv Karan about beating to Satya Narain. As we have mentioned above this fact is falsified by the statement of Brij Mohan who has stated that he did not tell to Shiv Karan about beating to Satya Narain. But he told to Ram Narain and Ram Narain informed Shiv Karan. Shiv Karan does not say that Ram Narain informed him about Satya Narain's beating. Ram Narain has not been examined so from the very beginning the statement of Shiv Karan is a false statement uncorroborated statement. He has stated that he went to the canal and then to the railway station, Kopren but did not find his son Satya Narain so he came back and he was returning and immediate at the field of Mangi Lal all the accused persons attacked him. He found that the accused persons had already injured Bhanwar Lal, Ramesh and Ram Prasad who were lying there. It means he is not an eye-witness to the beating to Bhanwar Lal, Ramesh and Ram Prasad. He came later on and he was also beaten by them. He was also medically examined and his injury report is Ex. P. 15. In the cross-examination he tried to convince that he is an eye witness to the beating to Ramesh and Bhanwar Lal but his statement is incredible. His dying declaration was also recorded by SHO in presence of the doctor which is Ex. D. 6, where he has stated that he was inflicted blows by Ganesh with gandasi, Birdhi. Paras and Mukat also with gandasi Birdhi inflicted gandasi blow on his head. In the cross-examination he has stated 'hat this statement in presence of doctor is not correct statement. He has stated that whatever he has stated in court today is a correct statement. Thus he has contradicted his own statement Ex.6. In the cross-examination, he has also stated that he did not see Mathura at the place of occurrence. He did not see at the place of occurrence anybody except accused persons. He has also denied to have seen any injury on the body of Kalu Lal. He did not see even Gogri there. This is false statement. Ramesh PW 2 has stated that at the place of occurrence Mathura alone was the witness there Shiv Karan PW 4, denies the presence of Mahura according to him no witness was present except accused persons. He did not see even Gogri there. This is false statement. Ramesh PW 2 has stated that at the place of occurrence Mathura alone was the witness there Shiv Karan PW 4, denies the presence of Mahura according to him no witness was present except accused persons. Mathura has not been examined, so this shows that Shiv Karan has not been given his statement with truth. He tried to his certain aspects which proves that he is also a liar. The first part of beating to Satya Narain has been disbelieved by us. Shiv Karan is the father of Satya Narain, brother of deceased Bhanwar Lal, so the whole story is a concocted one and the prosecution has not put up the correct story. No doubt, the members of the complainant party had received injuries and one of them had died. The accused persons also received injuries. It was the duty of the prosecution to put up true story before the court. It is admitted that a report was also lodged on behalf of the accused persons. Shubh Karan PW 15, SHO, has admitted in the cross-examination that Kalu and Gogri lodged a report about their beating but a final report was submitted in that report. He has admitted that Kalu had grievous injuries Gogri had also injuries but according to SHO he found that the complainant party inflicted injuries to Kalu, Gogri and others in their right of private defence. With this observation a final report was submitted by SHO in the complaint filed by Kalu and others. It is strange that the Investigating Officer became the authority to judge whether there was any private defence or not. It is within the powers of the Investigating Officer to arrive at this conclusion He was simply to investigate the matter and put up the challan, if a case is made out. It was for the court to arrive at the conclusion whether any party had right of private defence or not. When a report under Section 307 was lodged, and I.O. found that there was grievous injury to Kalu and others were also injured, it was his duty to investigate that matter also and put up the correct picture before the court. When a report under Section 307 was lodged, and I.O. found that there was grievous injury to Kalu and others were also injured, it was his duty to investigate that matter also and put up the correct picture before the court. But instead of bringing the correct picture before the court the SHO decided that the complainant party inflicted blows to the accused persons in their right of private defence and submitted final report. This is not fair for the Investigating Officer. What we feel that the I.O. has not fairly investigated the case and he has falsely implicated accused persons and concocted a story. It is not established how the prosecution witnesses have come to know about the beating of Satya Narain. There is vast difference in the statement of these witnesses. It has not been established how the prosecution witnesses came to know about the second part of the story i. e. beating of Bhanwar Lal, Ramesh and others. The material witnesses who informed about this occurrence, Galta Bai, Babu Lal, Ramswaroop, Ram Narain and Raghunandan have not been examined. The only eye witness Mathura who witnessed the occurrence has not been examined. Only the relative and interested witnesses have been examined. All these relatives witnesses are injured persons. No doubt, the statements of the interested persons should not be thrown away, but their testimony needs minute and detailed scrutiny. As we have discussed above, we find that all these interested witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses. We place no reliance on these relative and interested witnesses. The prosecution should have examined independent witnesses and they have failed to examine them and the learned public prosecutor has failed to explain why those material witnesses were not examined. We have mentioned above that non-examination of those material witnesses create doubt in the story of the prosecution. We have also held that non-examination of the important witnesses immediately u/s 161 Cr. P.C. create doubt in the correctness of the story. The entire story of the prosecution about Satya Narain's beating has not been established. Satya Narain has received injuries but his injury report has not been produced. Satya Narain lodged a report about his beating at the Police Station but that report has not been produced so the genesis of this beating to Bhanwar Lal and others is that Kalu and Gogri beat Satya Narain. Satya Narain has received injuries but his injury report has not been produced. Satya Narain lodged a report about his beating at the Police Station but that report has not been produced so the genesis of this beating to Bhanwar Lal and others is that Kalu and Gogri beat Satya Narain. This fact has not been proved at all. The second aspect that they were beaten at the field of Mangilal has not been established by the prosecution in that way which has been alleged by them. It is not disputed that the field of Mangilal was in possession of the accused persons. It is not disputed that they were not in the field. The accused persons were in the field of Mangilal the complainant party and others has no right over the field of Mangilal. Why the members of the complainant party Bhanwar Lal, Ramesh and Ram Prasad came to the field of Mangi Lal. The story about their coming to the field as set up by the prosecution is a false story and after discussion we are of this opinion that there was no jurisdiction over the complainant party to come to the field of Mangilal. They came to the field where the second incident took place and in that occurrence both the parties received injuries. This means that the complainant party was aggressor and they came to the field of Mangilal where the accused persons were working, therefore, the entire prosecution story is a false story. 25. It is in the evidence that Kalu received injuries and one of the injury was grievous injury on the hand. According to prosecution, first of all, incident took place at the canal near Railway Station where Kalu and Gogri beat Satya Narain. Where Kalu received injury on his hand has not been explained by the prosecution. It means that Kalu received all the injuries at the field of Mangi Lal. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that they did not see any injury on the body of Kalu Lal. How Kalu received grievous injuries? When he received grievous injury there is no question of his beating to complainant party. He could not have participated in this incident because he himself was injured but the non-explanation of the injuries of the accused persons creates doubts in the prosecution story. 26. How Kalu received grievous injuries? When he received grievous injury there is no question of his beating to complainant party. He could not have participated in this incident because he himself was injured but the non-explanation of the injuries of the accused persons creates doubts in the prosecution story. 26. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to doctor PW3, Surender Singh, the injury no. 1 to Bhanwar Lal deceased cannot be caused by a weapon having an edge of less than 71/2". Likewise the injury no. 2 to Bhanwar Lal cannot be caused by a weapon having edge less than 41/2". The weapon which was recovered by the prosecution has not been shown to the doctor and he has not been asked whether injury no. 1 and 2 to Bhanwar Lal deceased could be caused by this weapon. It was the duty of the prosecution to show the weapon to doctor and to have established that the injuries to Bhanwar Lal could be caused by the weapon recovered from the accused persons. 27. Kartarey and others v. State of U.P. in AIR (1976) SC 76 , their Lordships have observed as under:- "where injuries found are forensically of the same species, e.g. stab wounds, and the problem before the Court is whether all or any of those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon, it is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may, something, cause aberration in course of justice". 28. The learned counsel for the appellant has also cited Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar AIR (1976) SC 2263 . 29. Thus, in view of our above discussion, we find that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused persons. We are unable to agree with the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi. 30. In the result the appeal is accepted. 29. Thus, in view of our above discussion, we find that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused persons. We are unable to agree with the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi. 30. In the result the appeal is accepted. The accused appellants are not found guilty of the offences u/s 302, 307, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 323 read with 149 & 324 read with 149 IPC. All the appellants are, therefore, acquitted from these offences. The accused appellants are in jail they be released forthwith, if not needed in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******