JUDGMENT 1. - These are criminal appeals under Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 30-8-1984 convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:- Under Section 302, I.P.C. or in the alternative Under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further two months R.I. Under Section 324, I.P.C. or in the alternative Under Section 324/149, I.P.C. Two years' R.I. Under Section 323, I.P.C. or in the alternative Under Section 323/149, I.P.C. One years' R.I. Accused appellants Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas were further convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to undergo two years R.I. Since all these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are dealt with and disposed of by this single judgment. 2. In Parcha Bayan, Ex. P 1, injured Moji Ram stated that on 10-6-1983 at night, he Ram Rai, Jagdish and Laxmi Narain, all belonging to village Rambha, were sleeping near their well. About' 10-12 days earlier there was quarrel between them and accused Chhitar Jat. On account of that quarrel, about 1.00 a.m. Ram Chandra s/o Bhagota, Chittar s/o Birdha, Bheru s/o Khana, Rama s/o Onkar, Ram Karan s/o Badri and Kedar s/o Birdi Jat all residents of village Arniya and two other came armed with sticks and Gandasies. Chhitar and Kedar had Gandasies in their hands and others were armed with sticks. They all came and started beating them. Kedar and Chhitar struck Jagdish with Gandasies and others gave beating with sticks and Gandasies to all of them. He also described the injuries received by the persons and stated that Jagdish and Laxmi Narain received serious injuries On their shouting Rodu, Ram Jiwan, Bajrarg Jat came there, where upon the accused persons ran away. Thereafter all the 4 injured went in a bullock cart to the hospital at Nivai, where Jagdish died soon after. On this Parcha Bayan, the police registered a case and investigation commenced. After usual investigation, the police filed a challan against accused Ram Karan under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C.; Kedar under Sections 302/149, 323/149, I.P.C. and 324/149 I.P.C. and against Jagdish, Ramba and Nathu under Sections 332/149, 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. After usual investigation, the police filed a challan against accused Ram Karan under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C.; Kedar under Sections 302/149, 323/149, I.P.C. and 324/149 I.P.C. and against Jagdish, Ramba and Nathu under Sections 332/149, 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge after recording the statement of Moji Ram, took cognizance against Ram Chandra, Chitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas and they were also summoned for standing their trial. After the recording of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge acquitted Jagdish, Rambha (Rama) and Nathu, but convicted and sentenced the above named 6 accused appellants as indicated above. 3. Soon after the judgment of trial Court, accused Kedar expired and appellant Ram Narain expired on 14-9-1986 as given out by his counsel, during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Mr. Tibrewal learned Counsel appearing for appellant Ram Karan has urged that the incident took place in village Rambha during mid night of 9/10th June, 1983 at about 1.00 a.m. It was dark night and there was no source of light at the time of occurrence. Therefore, it was not possible for the eye-witnesses to clearly see and recognise the persons, who came to assult them. He contends that in the Parcba Bayan (Ex. P 1), which is treated as an FIR, there is no mention clearly about the alleged dispute between the parties. Mere mentioning that there was a dispute few days back, does not give any indication of enmity, which is alleged in Ex. P 1. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the FIR has been lodged after delay of about 7 hours, which could have been filed soon after the occurrence to give the correct version of the incident and inspire confidence. It is farther contended that accused appellant Ram Karan has been implicated on account of enmity with the deceased who had brought Ram Karan's wife in Nata about 6-7 months prior to the incident. It is pointed out that PW 2 Laxmi Narain, who is father of deceased Jagdish and has also been examined as an eye witness, has given different time of the incident and as per his statement there were only 4 persons and has also stated that he cannot say as to why Jagdish was assaulted. It is pointed out that PW 2 Laxmi Narain, who is father of deceased Jagdish and has also been examined as an eye witness, has given different time of the incident and as per his statement there were only 4 persons and has also stated that he cannot say as to why Jagdish was assaulted. This witness has also stated that he is 70 years old and could not see properly. It is, therefore, urged that no motive to commit the crime has been established. 5. Mr. Baj and Mr. Jain appearing for appellants Chhitar, Bheru and Ramchandra have pointed out that a telephone was made to the Police Station Nivai on 10 6-1983 regarding the incident and the statement of PW 1 Moji Ram was recorded in the hospital, which is marked as Ex.P 1. The names of Chhitar, Bheru and deceased residents of villages Rambha were implicated by PW 1 Moji Ram when his statement Ex. P 2 was recorded by the learned trial court, after which cognizance was taken against the accused persons belonging to village Rambha including the accused appellants. Learned Counsel have pointed out that it is now clearly established from the statements of various witnesses that the main cause of incident was elopement of Mst. Suji wife of Ram Karan who came in Nata with deceased Jagdish. The motive behind the crime has nothing to do with the persons belonging to village Rambha as the assailants Ram Karau and others belonged to village Arniya. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have clearly admitted that deceased Jagdish had brought the wife of Ram Karan in Nata, on account of which a Panchayat had been held but "Zhagada Money" could not be decided. It is, therefore, submitted that it will be seen that the main target of attack was deceased Jagdish. A litigation was also pending between appellant Chhitar and PW 1 Moji Rain, who, therefore, falsely implicated Chhitar and others. It is, therefore, submitted that it will be seen that the main target of attack was deceased Jagdish. A litigation was also pending between appellant Chhitar and PW 1 Moji Rain, who, therefore, falsely implicated Chhitar and others. It is also pointed out that PW 3 Ramraj has clearly stated that after giving beating, all the accused persons ran away to South-West, which is towards village Arniya and none of the witnesses says that the accused persons ran away towards North where village Rambha is situated and if the accused persons belonging to village Rambha had participated in the crime, it was only natural that after committing crime they should have run towards village Rambha (North side) and not towards South-West. It is also pointed out that no recovery has been made from accused Chhitar, Badri and Ram Niwas, all of whom belong to village Rambha as has been made from the accused persons belonging to village Arniya. It is, therefore, urged that the accused appellants Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and deceased Ram Niwas belonging to village Rambha have been falsely implicated. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has supported the judgment of the trial court and has stated that deceased Jagdish bad been brutally murdered by all the accused appellants. He has stated that the name of accused Chhitar was even mentioned in Parcha Bayan given by Moji Ram. Therefore, it is urged that the appeals filed by the appellants deserve to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for both the sides and have also perused the judgment of the trial court, evidence and documents on record. 8. It is evident that Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas were prosecuted after the cognizance against them was taken by the trial court on the basis of the statement of Moji Ram recorded by the trial court and no challan had been filed against these persons by the prosecution agency. The challan was filed only against 5 persons, namely Ram Karan under Section 302, I PC, simpliciter and against Kedar, Jagdish, Rama and Nathu under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and the learned trial court acquitted Jagdish, Rama and Nathu. 9. PW 1 Moji Ram in his statement has stated that when they shouted after the assault, Ramjivan (PW 4), Rodu (PW 5) and Badri (PW 6) came on the spot. 9. PW 1 Moji Ram in his statement has stated that when they shouted after the assault, Ramjivan (PW 4), Rodu (PW 5) and Badri (PW 6) came on the spot. He has further stated that when these witnesses came in the spot, accused persons ran away. Evidently, these witnesses, therefore, did not see the actual occurrence and cannot be termed to be the eye witnesses. He has also staled in cross that deceased Jagdish was the target for debating and no person from the village was present when the beating took place. He has also stated that in his statement recorded in the court on 30-11-83 that he had stated that Ram Chandra had beaten him, but why it was not recorded in it, he cannot say. He also says that he had given up specific names of all the persons who had given beating to him, in the statement recorded on 30-11-1983. 10. PW 2 Laxmi Narain is also injured and has stated that he does not know why deceased Jagdish was murdered. He does not remember when the police had come in the hospital and has denied to have given any statement (Ex. D 3) to the police on enquiry. He could not see who gave beating to whom. 11. PW 3 Ramrai is also an injured and had sustained incised wound as per Ex P 31, has stated in his statement that Jagdish had brought Mst. Suji in Nata about 5 months earlier than the incident. He has also stated that this occurrence took place on this account. He has stated in cross-examination that Ram Karan was having Kulhari and not the Gandasi and he understands the difference between Kulhari and Gandasi. 12. PW 4 Ramjivan, who is said to have reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence has clearly stated that the reason for this occurrence was that deceased had brought the lady of Arniya in Nata. He does not know if there was any other motive also. He has also stated that Moji Ram PW 1 had told him that this occurrence has taken place on account of enmity of a woman. 13. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence discussed above that the motive behind the whole quarrel was bringing Mst. Suji wife of Ram Karan in Nata of deceased Jagdish. He has also stated that Moji Ram PW 1 had told him that this occurrence has taken place on account of enmity of a woman. 13. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence discussed above that the motive behind the whole quarrel was bringing Mst. Suji wife of Ram Karan in Nata of deceased Jagdish. Ram Karan belonged to village Arniya and 3 of the accused appellant belonged to village Rambha. Thus there is no reason that the persons belonging to village Rambha had joint hands with the persons belonging to village Arniya. All accused persons committing crime ran away to south west towards village Arniya and none of the accused ran away towards north where village Rambha is situated PW 1 Moji Ram has evidently involved 4 persons belonging to village Rambha on account of his own litigation pending between him and accused appellant Chhitar. Ex.P 8 is the recovery of Kulhari at the instance of Ram Karan. Ex.P 9, P 10 and P 11 are the memos of recovery of lathis from Jagdish. Kedar and Rama respectively. Ex.P 16 is the receipt of sending weapons for examination to the Serologist. Ex.P 18 is the report of Serologist, which shows human blood on Lathi, Kulhari and clothes. This therefore, clearly connects the Kulhari recovered from Ram Karan with the crime. Witness Rodu is evidently not an eye witness and even cannot say why this 'Marpeet' took place. PW 6 also cannot be termed to be an eye witness. 14. In the case of Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 315 . It was held by the Apex Court that the Court should be on its guards not to rely on bare testimony of oral evidence of witnesses, but should seek some assurance from independent source also. If there is no independent evidence on record to confirm the oral testimony of the witnesses in regard to identity and connection of the accused with the murder the court would as a matter of abundant caution refrain from accepting uncorroborated, infirm testimony of witnesses and accord the appellant benefit of doubt and acquit him. In the instant case also the oral testimony on record does not inspire confidence against the appellants, namely Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas to have committed the crime charged with. Appellant Ramniwas has already died. In the instant case also the oral testimony on record does not inspire confidence against the appellants, namely Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas to have committed the crime charged with. Appellant Ramniwas has already died. We are, therefore, of the view that the above named 3 appellants deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. So far as appellant Ram Karan is concerned, there is sufficient evidence oral or otherwise to connect him with the brutal murder committed in this case. 15. In the result, the appeal of appellant Ram Karan is dismissed and the appeals of Ram Chandra, Chittar, Bheru and Ram Niwas are accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellants Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas be set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellant Chhittar is in jail. He may be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Partly Accepted. *******