Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 447/83 has been preferred by Harbhan against his conviction under section 302 I. P. C. He was found guilty under section 302 I. P. C. vide judgment dt. 11/8/83 by Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg and sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. G. K. Sharma, J.- D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 447/83 has been preferred by Harbhan against his conviction under section 302 I. P. C. He was found guilty under section 302 I. P. C. vide judgment dt. 11/8/83 by Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg and sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months R. I. ( 2 ) AGAINST the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge dt. 11/8/83, the State has also preferred an appeal. In all 15 persons were challaned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused Harbhan only guilty of the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and acquitted rest of the accused- persons. Against the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. Leave to appeal was granted to the State with regard to accused Sarvan, Kajali, Lal Chand, Data Ram, Kallu, Kanhaiya and Bhagwan Singh only. ( 3 ) AGAINST that very judgment of the Addi. Sessions Judge, by which he acquitted other accused persons except Harbhan, the complainant Bhagwan Singh also filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 109/84. ( 4 ) AS an these appeals and the criminal revision arise out of the same judgment of Addi. Sessions Judge, Deeg dt. 11/8/83, they are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story a written report was lodged by Bhagwan Singh on 7/7/82 at Police Station, Deeg. It was alleged that there was enmity in between the deceased Jasmat and the accused-persons. On 7/7/82 when deceased Jasmat was going to take his bath, at the well at about 6 a. m. , accused Kanhaiya was sitting in front of the temple. He, after seeing Jasmat, called other accused persons who came armed with lathis, farsas and ballams. They took the deceased Jasmat in the side and gave blows with farsa and lathies. Some of the accused-persons surrounded Bhagwan Singh and Leela and also inflicted blows to Leela. After hearing the cries, Rajo came at the spot. He, after seeing Jasmat, called other accused persons who came armed with lathis, farsas and ballams. They took the deceased Jasmat in the side and gave blows with farsa and lathies. Some of the accused-persons surrounded Bhagwan Singh and Leela and also inflicted blows to Leela. After hearing the cries, Rajo came at the spot. Bhagwan Singh inflicted a farsa blow on Rajo and other accused gave lathi blows. When Bhagwan Singh tried to save, accused chased him. They found Prahalad, Dharampal, Nannu and Brijlal sitting in nohra and inflicted farsa blows to them. The accused persons caught hold of Jasmat and dragged him to the bungalow of Lallu. Harbhan inflicted farsa blow on the head of Jasmat and other accused persons also inflicted farsa and lathi blows. The accused-persons surrounded all of them and they were uttering words that all be killed, none be saved. On this allegation a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 452 I. P. C. was registered and started investigation. The injured were medically examined. Jasmat later on succumbed to the injuries. His postmortem was conducted and according to doctor the cause of death was bead injury. After completing the investigation, the police submitted challan against 28 persons. ( 6 ) THE accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to establish its case. No defence witness was produced by the accused persons. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge after completing trial and hearing both the parties I came to the conclusion that no case is made out against accused person except Harbhan S/o Prasadi. This accused Harbhan was found guilty of the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Harbhan has argued that the original report has been suppressed by the Police. The F. I. R Ex P-i submitted by Bhagwan Singh is not the original report but it was subsequently prepared as an afterthought. Bhagwan Singh who alleges himself to be an eye witness is not an eye-witness but is a concocted witness. It was also argued that prior to filing this report Ex. P1, two reports were submitted to the Police but they have been suppressed and not produced in the Court. Therefore, on account of suppression of the original report the prosecution story becomes doubtful. It was also argued that prior to filing this report Ex. P1, two reports were submitted to the Police but they have been suppressed and not produced in the Court. Therefore, on account of suppression of the original report the prosecution story becomes doubtful. It was also argued that there is no genesis for this incident and Police has charged the place of Incident. The prosecution has not examined some of the injured persons. Their statements were very important. They were injured persons and they would have given the correct story as to what had happened at that time. Non-production of these material witnesses throws doubt on the correctness of the prosecution story. It was also argued that the other injured persons were examined by the prosecution and their statements have been discussed in detail by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge In the judgment and be found them unreliable. Their statements were discarded by the learned trial Court There is no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge with regard to those injured persons who have been disbelieved by him. Regarding accused Harbhan it has been argued that he was convicted on the statement of those persons who have been disbelieved by the trial Court. Therefore, the conviction of Harbhan on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses is bad. The learned Public Prosecutor in support of the State Appeal No. 175/74 argued that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error to disbelieving the injured witnesses and has committed error In acquitting the accused persons for whom leave to appeal has been granted. According to learned Public Prosecutor the case is completely made out against these accused-persons. The witness Bhagwan Singh has been rightly believed by the trial Court and the conviction of Harbhan is correct. In the criminal reversion petition the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant argued that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in acquitting the other accused persons. The case is clearly made out against all the accused-persons and they should be convicted. So the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by all the learned counsels, we have minutely perused the statements recorded by the trial Court and the relevant documents and also perused the judgment of the Addi. Sessions Judge. So the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by all the learned counsels, we have minutely perused the statements recorded by the trial Court and the relevant documents and also perused the judgment of the Addi. Sessions Judge. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to prosecution Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1, who is Informant In this case, is the main witness. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of this witness by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge also believed the testimony of this witness and on the basis of the testimony of this witness, the appellant Harbhan Singh has been found guilty of the offence under section 302 I. P. C. We have gone through the statement of this witness. Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1 has, in this examination-in-chief, repeated the story mentioned in the report Ex. P1. He has stated in detail about each accused who inflicted injury at the time of incident. He has stated that after hearing cry and when the accused-persons found that Jasmat and Leela had died they ran away and at that very moment Police-people had arrived there. Mst. Rajo had gone running to Police Station and along with Mst. Rajo the Police- people arrived at the spot. He then went to Police Station and submitted the report. When he submitted the written report the Police fil ://d :\program Files\crimes\database\aa\aa\cmo 1988-1 (447 of 83 ). htm 9/4/2006 people told him that there is some lacuna in this report, so he came to Court and got another report written in the Court and then he submitted that second report at the Police Station which is Ex. P1 So this witness Bhagwan Singh has proved the report Ex. P1. He has also stated that prior to this report Ex. P1 Mst. Rajo has gone to the Police Station and the Police-people came along with her at the spot. It means that Mst. Rajo has lodged a report at the Police Station and that is why the Police-people came with Mst. Rajo. So the report of Mst. Rajo was the first report. Then, according to Bhagwan Singh he submitted a written report and it was returned to him saying that there is lacuna in it. It means that Mst. Rajo has lodged a report at the Police Station and that is why the Police-people came with Mst. Rajo. So the report of Mst. Rajo was the first report. Then, according to Bhagwan Singh he submitted a written report and it was returned to him saying that there is lacuna in it. Bhagwan Singh, then went to Court and got another report scribed by some person and then submitted at the Police Station which is Ex. P1. This second report of Bhagwan Singh has also not been produced and this Ex. P1 is the third report. There is not explanation for not producing by the learned Public Prosecutor, the first report lodged by Mst. Rajo and the second report submitted by Bhagwan Singh. Why the first and second reports were suppressed and not produced in the Court is best known to the prosecution. The third report Ex. P1 is a very detailed report, which shows that after due consideration and thought it has been drafted. What was the lacuna in the second report is not known to us but it seems that the second report which was submitted by Bhagwan Singh was not sufficient to make out a case and the Police wanted to have a full proof case and they wanted to implicate quite a large number of persons, hence a detailed report was got written by Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1. This aspect about F. I. R. has been discussed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge in his judgment and he has also come to this conclusion that this report Ex. P1 is a well thought report which was prepared subsequently after due consideration. In spite of this impression in the mind of trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge still believed the report Ex. P1. This is not a correct appreciation. Bhagwan Singh in the cross- examination has admitted that Rajo met him in the way while going to Thana. He has further stated that be did not submit any report at the Police Station except report Ex. P1. He has further stated that when he reached at the Police Station, Met. Rajo was with him at the Police Station. He got the first report written and the Police- people told him that this report is not clearly readable and asked him to bring another report. P1. He has further stated that when he reached at the Police Station, Met. Rajo was with him at the Police Station. He got the first report written and the Police- people told him that this report is not clearly readable and asked him to bring another report. That first report was written by him while sitting at the Police Station. He took about half an hour to write that first report. When Police arrived at the spot he also accompanied the Police and when Police returned from the spot to the Police Station then he submitted the report which is Ex. P1. According to him he got this report written at 10-11 Oclock One Goswami wrote this report. The statement of Bhagwan Singh shows that he is most unreliable person and who baa given self-contradictory statement. According to him one report was submitted when Police returned from the spot to Thana. This shows that report Ex. P1 is a manipulated one and prepared after due consideration in the cross-examination Bhagwan Singh has given a very strange answer. He has stated that when his statement was recorded by the Thanedar, he (Thanedar) told him that he did not know that these persons will murder. He has further stated that Yeh Bhagwan Janta Hai Ki Thanedar Ke Kahne Se Katla Hua Ho. In Ex. P1 it has been mentioned that the condition of Jasmat is very serious but in the cross-examination in the last line the witness Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1 has stated that when he was getting the report Ex. P1, written he had come to know that Jasmat has died. When he was informed at the time of scribing Ex P 1 that Jasmat had expired, why he did not mention this fact in the report Ex, P1. Why be mentioned that the condition of Jasmat is precious. This shows that Bhagwan Singh is most unreliable person. He is not at all an eye-witness. He has contradicted his own statement and also contradicted the report Ex. P. 1. The suppression of first and second reports also shows that Bhagwan Singh is an unreliable witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The learned trial Court has committed error in believing the testimony of Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1. He has contradicted his own statement and also contradicted the report Ex. P. 1. The suppression of first and second reports also shows that Bhagwan Singh is an unreliable witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The learned trial Court has committed error in believing the testimony of Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1. Nannu P. W. 2 is another eye-witness who has in the examination-in-chief supported the prosecution story but he has contradicted his own police statement Ex. Dl. He is an injured person. His statement was recorded in the hospital and when the statement was recorded he knew that Jasmat had died still in the statement Ex. Dl he had stated that the condition of Leela and Jasmat was serious He has denied to have given this statement. He has also stated that he had not seen anybody Inflicting lathi blow, so this witness is also not a reliable witness. Karan P. W. 3 is another eye-witness and in the examination-in-chief, he has supported the prosecution story, but the cross-examination shows that he is also an unreliable witness. He has not stated in Police statement that the accused-persons dragged Jasmat to the nohra of Lallu. He had not stated in the Police statement that Jasmat was beaten at the nohra. He had denied his Police statement Ex. Dl. Rajo P. W. 4 has tried to corroborate the prosecution story but has contradicted the statement of Karan Singh P. W. 3. According to her, Jasmat and Leela were beaten at the well which is not according to Karan Singh. Kallo P. W. 6 also gave contradictory statement and denied his own statement Ex. D5 recorded by Police P W. 11 Genda Singh is the S. H. O. who has stated that Bhagwan Singh. submitted the written report Ex. PT at the spot. This report was sent to Police Station for registering the case through Raj Kumar, Constable. This is a contradictory statement to Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1. According to Bhagwan Singh the report Ex. PT was submitted by him at the Police Station. He got it written in the Court and then went to Thana and submitted the report, while according to Genda Singh P. W. 11 this was submitted at the spot. In this cross-examination the S. H. O. has categorically stated that it is incorrect that report Ex. PT was submitted by him at the Police Station. He got it written in the Court and then went to Thana and submitted the report, while according to Genda Singh P. W. 11 this was submitted at the spot. In this cross-examination the S. H. O. has categorically stated that it is incorrect that report Ex. PT was submitted by Bhagwan Singh at Thana. He has also stated that it is not correct that Bhagwan Singh submitted first report and this second report was taken from him. According to S. H. O. Ex. P1 was submitted at 8 a. m. at the spot and at TI a. m. Raj Kumar Constable came back from the Thana after registering the case. But this statement is falsified by Bhagwan Singh P. W. 1 who has stated that he reached at the Police Station and submitted the report Ex. P1 which was got written at 10-11 a. m. ( 10 ) SO this is the position of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has thoroughly discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the judgment and has observed that statements of the witnesses are contradictory to the report Ex. P1. Leela, Pralad, Dhanpal and Brij Lal who are injured persons and whose medical reports have not been submitted, have not been examined. In Para 17 of the judgment after discussing the statement of the prosecution witnesses the learned trial Court has observed that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable witnesses. The Investigating Officer should have examined independent witnesses but he has not examined any independent witness. On account of old enmity and old litigation pending between the parties the witnesses tried not to speak truth and they tried to implicate as many accused-persons as they could implicate in this matter. From the statement of the S. H. O. Genda Singh he inferred that the S. H. O. did not try to get the correct picture and intentionally brought a false story before the Court. Mst. Rajo who had arrived at the Police Station at 7. 30 a. m. and her report was written in the Rojnamcha, but that Rojnamcha was not produced. That report has been suppressed by the Investigating Officer The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has remarked that S. H. O. Ganda Singh has deliberately gave a false statement that Bhagwan Singh submitted a report at the spot. 30 a. m. and her report was written in the Rojnamcha, but that Rojnamcha was not produced. That report has been suppressed by the Investigating Officer The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has remarked that S. H. O. Ganda Singh has deliberately gave a false statement that Bhagwan Singh submitted a report at the spot. The remark is that the conduct of Ganda Singh P. W. 11 was not independent and honest conduct. It was also observed that it seems that the Police tried to implicate as many persons. In this matter as it could. Even after giving this remark the learned Addi. Sessions Judge found that the case is made out against Harbhan. We fail to understand on what basis the learned trial Court found Harbhan guilty of the offence under section 302 T. P. C. On the one hand the learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story, observed that the entire story has been concocted and the report Ex. P1 has been prepared subsequently, and that the S. H. O. Ganda Singh P. W. 11 has implicated 28 person and has not correctly and honestly investigated the matter, but in spite of this the learned trial Court believed that case is made out against Harbhan. We are of the opinion that the approach of the learned trial court against accused Harbhan is incorrect. The entire Police case is a concocted one. The Police has not submitted the correct picture before the. Court and tried to suppress the true facts. Absolutely case is not made out against Harbhan appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is unfortunate that Jasmat had died in this incident but it does not mean that somebody should be punished for his death. If a case is proved beyond reasonable doubt the certainly Harbhan can be held liable for this murder, but the case is not made out beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved by the learned trial Court for the accused-persons except Harbhan Singh and he believed the same prosecution witnesses against Harbhan Singh. This is not a correct approach. ( 11 ) IN view of our above discussion, we find that no case is made out against Harbhan and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Similarly, there is no substance in the State Appeal against the acquittal order. This is not a correct approach. ( 11 ) IN view of our above discussion, we find that no case is made out against Harbhan and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Similarly, there is no substance in the State Appeal against the acquittal order. Similarly, there is no substance in the revision petition filed by the complainant. ( 12 ) AS a result, the Appeal No. 447/83 of Harbhan Singh is accepted. He is not found guilty of the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and is acquitted. Harbhan is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not needed in any other case. ( 13 ) D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 115/84 State of Rajasthan v. Sarvan and Ors having no substance, is hereby dismissed. ( 14 ) THE DB. Cr. Revision No. 109/84 Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Kajali is also dismissed.