JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated 8th July, 1986 convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 326 & 449, IPC. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, for offence lender Section 326, IPC; and to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 449, IPC. All the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant, were, however, ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Kalyan Singh has filed D.B. Cr. Jail Appeal No. 322/86, through the jail authorities, while D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 496/86 has been filed by him in represented capacity. 3. This occurrence in this case, is alleged to have taken place on 22nd March, 1984 at about 9-10 p.m., and the FIR was lodged on 24th March, 1984, in the morning at about 10.15 O'clock. The appellant is that nephew of Bheru Singh (deceased) and son of Hari Singh, who is the real brother of deceased Bheru Singh. Hari Singh and his brothers were four in number, and out of them, only Hari Singh was married and all others were unmarried, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar was the real sister of deceased Bheru Singh, and she was widow and living with her grand-daughter Mst. Mohan Kanwar at the house of deceased Bheru Singh. Bheru Singh had declared that he would bear the expenses of the marriage of Mst. Mohan Kanwar, grand-daughter of Mst Sajjan Kanwar, and that, he would give his land to Mst Sajjan Kanwar, for her maintenance. Due to this declaration, some dispute had arisen between Bheru Singh on one side and Hari Singh and his sons, on the other. According to tie prosecution, the accused appellant had given threatening to Bheru Singh, when he had purchased some articles in connection with the marriage of Mst. Mohan Kanwar, before the alleged occurrence. Due to this declaration, some dispute had arisen between Bheru Singh on one side and Hari Singh and his sons, on the other. According to tie prosecution, the accused appellant had given threatening to Bheru Singh, when he had purchased some articles in connection with the marriage of Mst. Mohan Kanwar, before the alleged occurrence. It is then alleged that the accused-appellant had come with knife in his hand, while Bheru Singh (deceased) was sleeping inside the 'Pol' and his brother Parbat Singh, in the chowk. And then, the accused gave knife blows to Bheru Singh first and then to Mst. Sajjan Kanwar, who had come to rescue her brother Bheru Singh. After inflicting the blows with knife, accused Kalyan Singh ran away. Bheru Singh received injuries on his head and died instantaneously. Mst. Sajjan Kanwar also received injuries and her four teeth were broken. 4. On the above report, a case under Section 302, 307, 452 and 325, Indian Penal Code was registered. During investigation, the police prepared a site-plan (Ex.P 2). On 23rd March, 1984 in presence of the Panchas of the village Panchayat and Parbat Singh, the informant of (he FIR (Ex.P 1), an inquest-report (Ex P 3) was prepared. Plood stained soil from the place where Bheru Singh was lying dead, was seized vide memo (Ex.P 4) and (Ex.P 5). The broken teeth of Msf. Sajjan Kanwar, were also recovered vide memo (Ex.P 6). The accused w as arrested, who then gave information that he had kept the knife with Dhan Singh. Then, the investigating officer on 9th July, 1985, recovered the knife, vide recovery-memo (Ex.P 8), from the possession of Dhan Singh. The said knife vas banded over to the police by Dhan sing himself. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. R.C. Dubey PW 7, in whose opinion, the cause of death was the head-injury, heamorrhage and coma. The doctor also examined the injuries of Mst. Sajjan Kanwar. After completing the usual investigation, the police f submitted a challan against the accused. 5. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302, 452, 307, 499, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses. The doctor also examined the injuries of Mst. Sajjan Kanwar. After completing the usual investigation, the police f submitted a challan against the accused. 5. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302, 452, 307, 499, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses. The accused denied all the allegations made against him, and his contention was that he was serving the Indian Army, and had gone to his unit two days prior to the alleged occurrence, and that the case has been falsely made out against him. He, in his defence, examined one witness. 6. The trial court, after concluding the trial, and perusing the record, found that the case has been established against the accused-appellant, and so, it found him guilty and sentenced him as mentioned above. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in this case, Parbat Singh PW 1; Mst. Mohan Kanwar PW 2; and Mst. Sajjan Kanwar PW 2 are alleged to be the eye-witnesses While referring to the statements of these witnesses, it was argued by him that they are most unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses and they have contradicted each other's testimony. It was also argued by him that while preparing the inquest-report (Ex.P 3), it was not mentioned therein that appellant Kalyan Singh had inflicted the injuries to Bheru Singh and Mst. Sajjan Kanwar, and that in the said report, it was mentioned that some body had inflicted those injuries, and so, according to the learned Counsel the entire case appears to be false and concocted one. He further argues that Mst. Sajjan Kanwar PW 5 has given a new story and she has also denied the presence of Mst. Mohan Kanwar PW 2 at the place of the occurrence. It was then argued that from the statement of the investigating officer, Mohanlal PW 12, it becomes clear that the entire case has been made out, and that no reliance can be placed on the recovery of the knife, as the same was not recovered at the instance of the accused. 8. It was then argued that from the statement of the investigating officer, Mohanlal PW 12, it becomes clear that the entire case has been made out, and that no reliance can be placed on the recovery of the knife, as the same was not recovered at the instance of the accused. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that it was not necessary to mention in the inquest-report, the name of the assailant, and that, this report is only regarding the opinion of the Panchas and it is relevant only to the extent that the Panchas have opined that the death of the injured was due to. infliction of injuries. He cited the case of Iqbal Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1987 Cr.LJ 838 and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962 . 9. We have heard the arguments of both the learned Counsel and also perused the case-laws cited by them. There is no dispute that in the inquest report, the opinion of the Panchas was to be obtained and it was not necessary to mention therein, the name of the assailant. Where some of the assailants have been named in the inquest-report and some have been omitted, then, certainly, it becomes relevant to be considered as to why the names of the other assailants were not mentioned there in. The scope of proceedings under Section 174, Cr PC is a limited one by this report, the opinion of the Panchas is to be ascertained whether the victim died on account of natural death or under some other circumstances. So, the point to be ascertained is the cause of death, and so, it is not necessary for the police to mention in the inquest-report, the details of the incident. But, if the fact is mentioned in the inquest-report as to who had inflicted the injuries, though, it was not necessary to mention then, names of the assailants should also be mentioned. In the present case, where the circumstances are peculiar, not mentioning the names of the assailants, has great importance. The inquest-report (Ex. P 3) was prepared in presence of five Panchas and Parbat Singh, the informant of the First Information Report (Ex. P 1) and the real brother of deceased Bheru Sing. In the present case, where the circumstances are peculiar, not mentioning the names of the assailants, has great importance. The inquest-report (Ex. P 3) was prepared in presence of five Panchas and Parbat Singh, the informant of the First Information Report (Ex. P 1) and the real brother of deceased Bheru Sing. When the inquest-report was prepared, Parbat Singh was also present there, and he put his thumb-impression on the said report (Ex. P. 3), along with the other Panchas. When Parbatsingh lodged the report (Ex. P. 1), he specifically and clearly mentioned therein that 'Kalyan' had inflicted the injuries to Bheru Singh. Parbatsingh is the real brother of Bheru Singh (beceased), and also uncle of the accused-appellant. When the inquest-report was prepared, it was mentioned in the end, "Jisey kisine mara hay." It was not necessary to have mentioned these words. However, when the SHO wrote these words in presence of Parbatsingh informant, why did he not object at that time to it and tell the SHO that the name of Kalyan be written in it? So, in such circumstances, it was necessary for the SHO to have mentioned the name of Kalyansingh in the inquest report (Ex. P. 3). It is not understandable that when Parbatsingh was present, and he knew that Kalyansingh had inflicted the blows to Bherusingh resulting in his death, then, why this fact was not mentioned in the said report. It creates doubt in the story of the prosecution. It might be possible that on account of enmity, the name of Kalyansingh was mentioned in the report (Ex. P. 1). In this respect, we are supported by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Balakasingh's case (supra). 10. We have perused the entire evidence. Parbatsing PW 1 has stated that he was lying in the chowk, when Kalyansigh came there with a knife in his hand, and inflicted blows with it to his brother, Bherusingh, His sister, Mst. Mohan Kanwar also had witnessed the occurrence. According to him after inflicting the blows to his brother, the accused inflicted injuries to his sister, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar, on her head, and also broke her teeth, and at that time, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar was standing near the Khejri tree. Mohan Kanwar also had witnessed the occurrence. According to him after inflicting the blows to his brother, the accused inflicted injuries to his sister, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar, on her head, and also broke her teeth, and at that time, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar was standing near the Khejri tree. From the cross-examination of this witness, it seems that he had seen Kalyansingh coming through the Pol, and that even after inflicting the knife-blows by the accused to his brother, he did not raise any alarm, nor did he try to catch accused Kalyansingh. He has also stated that the accused had run away after opening the gate of the Pol, and that when he reached the spot, his sister, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar had already arrived there. This shows that this witness had not witnessed the actual occurrence. According to him, the knife-blows were inflicted to Bherusingh while he was lying to the ground, near a cot. He has not stated that Mst. Sajjan Kanwar had arrived there with a torch, and that, she had seen the accused in the light of that torch. 11. Mst. Mohan Kanwar PW 2 has stated that she and her grand mother were cooking food, and that at that time, they heard some sound of Kadab at this, her grandmother with a torch in her hand came out, and she accompanied her, and then in the light of that torch, they saw accused Kalyan inflicting knife-blows to Bherusingh thereafter, the accused dragged him down on the ground from the cot, whereon the latter was sleeping. According to this witness, her grandmother had tried to resue Bherusingh and she also fell down on the body of Bherusingh. Then, Kalyansingh inflicted knife blows to her also and broke her teeth. According to her, Parbatsingh who was 'sleeping at that time, woke up after hearing the cry of her grand mother. 12. Thus, Mst. Mohan Kanwar PW 2 has contradicted the statement of Parbatsing PW P. According to Parbatsingh, he was not sleeping, and further, according to his cross-examination, he had come to Report, after the arrival of Mst. Sajjan Kanwar and Mst. Mohan Kanwar. Mst. Mohan Kanwar has specifically stated that Parbatsingh had, not arrived at the spot, along with them, and very clearly, she has stated that Parbatsingh had woke up after hearing the cry his grandmother. Sajjan Kanwar and Mst. Mohan Kanwar. Mst. Mohan Kanwar has specifically stated that Parbatsingh had, not arrived at the spot, along with them, and very clearly, she has stated that Parbatsingh had woke up after hearing the cry his grandmother. It means that Parbatsingh was not an eye-witness to the alleged incident, Mst. Mohan Kanwar and Mst. Sajjan Kanwar were the only eye witnesses to the incident, and they both had seen the actual occurrence in the light of the torch. Mst. Mohan Kanwar has also contradicted and denied her own statement given in the police (Ex. D 1). 13. Mst. Sajjan Kanwar PW 5 has repeated the same statement as that of Mst. Mohan Kanwar, in her examination-in-chief. She has stated that hearing the sound of Kadab' she herself and her grand daughter and that her grand daughter, Mst. Mohan Kanwar was having a torch in her hand. She had lighted her torch had seen that Kalyansingh who was having knife in his hand, inflicted injuries with it to his brother, Bheru Singh. She then cried. At this, Parbatsingh woke up. So, according to this witness, the torch was with Mst. Mohan Kanwar PW 2, while according to Mst. Mohan Kanwar it was with Mst. Sajjan Kanwar. No torch was recovered by the police, during investigation. 14. Mst. Sajjan Kanwar PW 5, in her police statement (Ex. D 2) did not give the story of torch. She did not state therein that Mst. Mohan Kanwar had arrived with a torch in her hand, and that she had seen Kalyan inflicting injuries to Bherusingh, in the light of that torch. Portions A to B, C to D and E to F of her statement (Ex. D 2) were read over to this witness, and she denied to have given that statement in the police In her police statement, this witness even did not state that Mst. Mohan Kanwar was at all present at the spot and that she had also witnessed the occurrence. So, in her court-statement Mst. Sajjan Kanwar PW 5 has given a new story introducing Mst. Mohan Kanwar, with a torch in her hand. 15. Another aspect is that according to the statement of Mst. Mohan Kanwar. Mst. Sajjan Kanwar had fallen down on the body of Bheru Singh. It is also admitted that the clothes of Mst. So, in her court-statement Mst. Sajjan Kanwar PW 5 has given a new story introducing Mst. Mohan Kanwar, with a torch in her hand. 15. Another aspect is that according to the statement of Mst. Mohan Kanwar. Mst. Sajjan Kanwar had fallen down on the body of Bheru Singh. It is also admitted that the clothes of Mst. Sajjan Kanwar were smeared with blood and so also that the bed on which Bheru Singh was sleeping, was also smeared with blood. The SHO did not recover either the blood stained clothes of Mst. Sajjan Kanwar or the blood stained bed of Bheru Singh. This is certainly a lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Had the blood stained clothes of Mst. Sajjan Kanwar been seized, that would have been a corroborative piece of evidence to her statement. 16. Another very important aspect of this case is that all the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that the injuries were inflicted to Bheru Singh while he was sleeping on a cot and his bed was smeared with blood But, in his cross-examination, SHO Mohan Lal has said that there was no blood found on the bed and hence, he did not seize it. Then, a new story has been given by Mohan Lal PW 12 the SHO In his cross-examination, he has said that Mst Sajjan Kanwar was also inflicted blows inside the house as well as near the Khejri tree. He has also stated that he had gone inside the room where Mst. Sajjan Kanwar was beaten up. At the time of incident, Mst. Sajjan Kanwar was sleeping in her room. So, this is a new story. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that Mst. Sajjan Kanwar was sleeping at the time of the alleged occurrence and that she was given beating inside the room. 17. According to Mst. Sajjan Kanwar as well as Mst. Mohan Kanwar, they were cooking food and they, having heard some sound, had come out with a torch. But, the SHO in this case, gives a new story. He has further stated that he had seen blood lying near the Khejri tree, but he did not collect therefrom, the blood-stained earth. No explanation has been given by this witness, with regard to this. 18. But, the SHO in this case, gives a new story. He has further stated that he had seen blood lying near the Khejri tree, but he did not collect therefrom, the blood-stained earth. No explanation has been given by this witness, with regard to this. 18. Thus, in view of our above discussion and going through the entire evidence, we find that prosecution witnesses, namely Prabat Singh PW 1, Mst. Mohan Kan war PW 2 and Mst Sajjan Kan war are most unreliable witnesses and they have contradicted each other's statement. The statement of the SHO, Mohan Lal, the Investigating Officer, 12 is also unreliable who has contradicted the statements of the other prosecution witnesses and has put-forth a new case, which has not been deposed by any of the other prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, committed error in finding the accused-appellant guilty, as the case has not been established against him, beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the result, both the appeals are accepted. The accused-appellant is not found guilty of offences as held by the trial court. His convictions and the sentences are, therefore, set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any otherAppeal accepted. *******