K.S. LODHA, J.—The learned Sessions Judge, Churu by his judgment dated 6th October, 1980 has convicted and sentenced the seven appellants as under:— Triloka Ram, Narayan and Naurang each u/s 148 IPC, sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. u/s 302 IPC read with s. 149 IPC sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- and u/s 323 IPC read with s. 149 IPC sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. Jeewan, Kanaram, Gopalram and Nandram each u/s 147 IPC sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and u/s 323 IPC read with s. 149 IPC sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under section 302 IPC read with s. 147 IPC sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Aggrieved of these convictions and sentences appellants have filed the present appeal. 3. In order to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution story may be briefly stated here. In 1975 one Bhagirath, brother of the present appellant Naurang was murdered. The deceased Narayan Ram s/o Hanumanram alongwith Khuman and Sohan were prosecuted for the murder of Bhagirath and were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu on 30th of November, 1976. They filed an appeal before this Court and during the pendency of the appeal, their sentences were suspended by the order dated 6th July, 1979. Accused Triloka Ram, Naurang and Narain s/o Tulcha Ram had appeared as prosecution witnesses in that case. 3. Tulcha Ram father of the accused Narain had two brothers Deva and Bhoma. Tulcha Ram had another son Kana, Deva had two sons Bhagirath who was murdered in the aforesaid case and the accused Naurang. Bhoma had two sons Nanda and Jeevan. There is another family consisting of two brothers Nathu and Kanwara. Nathu had four sons Bhaniram PW 3, Megha, Bhagwana and Surja. All the three Megha, Bhagwana and Surja are now no more. Meghas wife was Ramkanwari, Bhagiraths wife was Gora and Surjas wife was Dafa. On the death of Megha Ramkanwari came in nata, to Bhani Ram. Accused Triloka is said to have been born to Gora from Bhani Ram and on the death of Bhagwana Gora also came in nata to Bhani Ram. Ramkanwari and Bhani Ram later got displeased with Triloka Ram and their relations are admittedly strained and some litigation has also taken place between Bhani Ram and Triloka Ram. Accused Triloka is said to have been born to Gora from Bhani Ram and on the death of Bhagwana Gora also came in nata to Bhani Ram. Ramkanwari and Bhani Ram later got displeased with Triloka Ram and their relations are admittedly strained and some litigation has also taken place between Bhani Ram and Triloka Ram. The present incident is alleged to have taken place on 15ih of June, 1979. It is alleged that on the night of 14th June, 1979 deceased Narayan son of Hanuman had engaged the camel cart of PW 3 Bhani Ram in order to carry logs of wood from his field at Chajusar to Churu. The camel cart was loaded in the night and it is alleged that on the morning of 15th of June, 1979 deceased Narain, his wife Smt. Manni PW 2 alongwith Bhani Ram PW 3 left for Churu. They did not take the direct route to Churu but had gone through Potiwala Rasta. When they had gone a little distance from Chajusar, Smt. Manni saw the seven accused armed with Barchi, axe, gandasis and lathis coming towards them. Naurang was armed with a barchi, Narain with an axe and Triloka with a gandasi. Rest of them had lathis. On seeing them approaching Manni accosted her husband and feeling danger at their heads, they tried to take shelter by the side of the camel cart. Bhani Ram, who was holding the rope of camel, seeing the danger, left the camel cart and ran away. He is alleged to have stopped a few paces away from where he had seen the accused belabouring Smt. Manni and her husband Narain. According to Smt. Manni Triloka Ram first gave a gandasi blow on her head on account of which she fell down. Then she also received some blows on the back between the scapulas. She also alleges to have seen the accused Narain giving a barchi blow on the head of deceased Narain, Naurang giving an axe blow on the head of the deceased Narain and the other accused giving lathi blows to Narain. She further states that when she tried to grapple with Triloka, he caught her in his arms and on that account Trilokas chola got stained with blood. After giving blows to Manni and Narain accused persons left the place. She further states that when she tried to grapple with Triloka, he caught her in his arms and on that account Trilokas chola got stained with blood. After giving blows to Manni and Narain accused persons left the place. Manni then got up and saw that her husband had by that time breathed his last. Then Mani de-harnessed the camel from the cart and went to the village where she informed Bhomaram Khinchar Birja, Panch, Megharam and Ramu etc. of this incident where upon these persons came to the spot to see the dead body and keep watch on it. Manni alongwith Rameshwar Jat then went to the Police Station, Ratannagar at a distance of 27 Kms. and there she lodged verbal report which was taken down vide Ex. P/2 at 2.30 PM. She narrated the whole story as indicated above. The police registered a case u/s 148, 307 and 302 IPC and started investigation SHO Rarnprashad PW 11 after getting the FIR recorded went to the spot He reached there at about 4 PM and after inspecting the dead body of Narayan, he prepared the inquest memo Ex. P/l. He then inspected the site at the instance of Smt. Manni and prepared the site plan Ex. P/6 alongwith the detailed description on its back. He found the pair of shoes of the deceased Narain lying at the spot and recovered the same. He also recovered the blood stained clothes and also the soil vide Ex. P/7. The injuries of Smt. Manni were got medically examined and postmortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of Narain. He arrested all the accused persons on 23rd of June, 1979. On 24th of June, 1979 Shri Ramprashad states to have recovered the blood stained shirt from the person of Naurang and he also got him medically examined as there was an injury on his person. During the course of investigation the SHO recovered the "barchi from Narayan, axe from Naurang and gandasi from Triloka and lathis from other accused persons in pursuance of the informations said to have been given by them. 4. After completing the investigation the police put up a challan against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and they were committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. After completing the investigation the police put up a challan against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and they were committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges for the offence u/s 148, 302 read with s. 149 and s. 307 read with s. 149 IPC were framed against the accused persons, They pleaded net guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses out of them PW 2 Smt. Manni and PW 7 Bhani Ram are the eye-witnesses. PW 4 is Dr. Khem Chand and PW 11 Ramprashad is the investigating officer. Rest of them are formal witnesses, except one Mohan Ram PW 6 to whom Bhani Ram is alleged to have narrated the story after running away from the spot. The accused, when examined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution story. However, no witness in defence was produced. 5. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relying upon the evidence of Manni and partly on the statement of Bhanni Ram and the recovery of barchi, axe and gandasi respectively from the accused Narain, Naurang and Triloka and the presence of blood stains on the shirt of Naurang convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 6. Appellant Narain has died pending the appeal. His appeal has thus abated. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the remaining appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Sessions Judge should not have at all relied upon the evidence of Manni. Apart from the fact that she is a highly interested witness, her presence at the spot appears to be doubtful on account of number of circumstances which we shall presently refer to. He also urged that the learned Sessions Judge should not have relied upon the evidence of Bhani Ram even in part as his conduct is wholly unnatural and he is not corroborated by Mohanram. It was also contended by him that the weapons said to have been recovered from the accused persons have not been proved to be stained with human blood, and therefore, they could not be connected with the present crime and the learned Sessions Judge could not have taken the circumstances of the recovery of these weapons into consideration against the accused. He further contended that the recovery of the blood stained shirt of accused Naurang is also not free from doubt and, therefore, this circumstance also could not have been used against him specially when the learned Sessions Judge himself had found that it is not established that the injury found on the person of Naurang was received by him during the course of this incident and has also found that the stains on the shirt of Naurang are not proved to be of human blood. Learned counsel further submitted that the account of the incident given by Smt. Manni and Bhani Ram does not fit in with the medical evidence. He, therefore, urged that the prosecution story should be disbelieved and the accused be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. It may at once be stated that so far as the circumstances of the recovery of the weapons from the accused Narayan, Naurang and Triloka are concerned, we do not agree with the learned Sessions Judge that this circumstance can be used against the accused persons since it has not been proved that these weapons were stained with human blood. We, therefore, do not propose to discuss in detail the evidence regarding the informations given by the accused leading to the recovery of these weapons and the recovery itself. 9. So far as the recovery of the blood stained shirt of Naurang is concerned, we do not propose to place much reliance on this recovery also in as much as although Naurang is said to have been arrested on 23rd March, 1979. There was no mention of the fact of his shirt, which he was wearing at that time, being stained with blood nor that shirt was recovered at the time of the arrest its about strangely enough on the next date i.e. 24th June, 1979 the blood stains are said to have been discovered on the clothes which the accused was alleged to be wearing. We fail to understand how these stains which are alleged to be of blood escaped the notice of the investigating officer when he arrested Naurang on 23.6.1979. We fail to understand how these stains which are alleged to be of blood escaped the notice of the investigating officer when he arrested Naurang on 23.6.1979. According to us if the stains were there on the clothes of Naurang at the time of his arrest, they would certainly have attracted the attention of the investigating officer and he would have immediately taken them into possession or atleast, in any case, would have mentioned the fact of the presence of these stains on the clothes of the accused Naurang at the time of his arrest in arrest memo Ex. P/15. But this fact is conspicuously absent in the said arrest memo. Further according to the Serologist report human blood had not been detected on these clothes and the learned Sessions Judge has mainly relied upon the chemical examiners report that there were stains of blood on the clothes of Naurang. Mere presence of spots of blood unless they are proved to be of human blood cannot give rise to any inference against the accused about his complicity in the offence. Therefore, this circumstance against Naurang, according to us cannot be of any avail to the prosecution. Now we are left with the evidence of the two eye witnesses namely Smt. Manni PW 2 and Bhani Ram PW, 3, and that of Mohan Ram PW 6. 10. We shall take up the statement of Bhani Ram PW 3 first, Although he alleges to have witnessed the whole incident while standing a little away from the scene of occurrence the learned Sessions Judge has not believed him as a full-fledged eye-witness but relied upon him only to the extent that he was present at the spot when the accused persons, according to him, had reached the spot and thereafter he fled away. However, on a careful scrutiny of the statement of this witness alongwith the statement of Mohan Ram PW 6 and keeping in view the other circumstances of the case, we do not find him a reliable witness at all and his conduct appears to us to be unnatural and improbable. He also appears to be an interested witness who may falsely implicate all or atleast some of the accused persons. He also appears to be an interested witness who may falsely implicate all or atleast some of the accused persons. Bhani Ram had appeared as a defence witness in favour of the deceased Narayan son of Hanuman and others in case of the murder of Bhagirath whereas his son Triloka accused had appeared as a prosecution witness in that case. Admittedly the relations between Bhani Ram and his son Triloka are highly strained and litigation has been going on between them. He, was, therefore, interested in involving Triloka in this case as he was also interested in implicating the other accused who had appeared as witnesses against the deceased Narain in the murder case of Bhagirath. Apart from this, his conduct appears to be wholly unnatural in as much as after, seeing the accused approaching deceased Narain and his wife Smt. Manni, he ran away from the spot and went to Churu where he met Mohan Ram PW. 5 His purpose of going to Churu in these circumstances is not easy to understand. If his purpose was to go and seek help, he would not have rushed to Churu which was at a distance of about 19 Kms. from the place of incident but would have gone back to his own village Chhajusar which was near by. If he purpose for going to Churu was to lodge a report before the police then he should have gone to the police station or to Superintendent of Police but he did not make any such report there. Instead he met Mohan Ram and accord-ing to both of these witnesses when Bhani Ram asked Mohan Ram to report the matter to the police. Mohan Lal told him that he would first go to the spot and verify the facts and then report the matter. This goes to show that even Mohan Ram was not ready to accept the word of Bhani Ram and wanted to verify the circumstances himself. The matter does not rest here. Even if it is believed that on the asking of Mohan Ram Bhani Ram went with him back to the spot and found the deceased Narayan lying there then having verified the fact Mohan Ram or Bhani Ram should have reported the matter to the police but they did not do so and quietly came away from the spot which seems to be wholly unnatural. We further find that according to the statement of these two witnesses before the Court, Bhani Ram had disclosed the names of all the appellants to Mohan Ram when he reached Churu but strangely enough in the police statement Ex. D/4 Mohan Ram states that Bhani Ram had not disclosed the names of the appellants to him. This statement before the police with which Mohan had been confronted clearly gives a lie to his statement before the Court that Bhani Ram had disclosed the names of the appellants to him as soon as he came to Churu. It also appears that if in fact Bhani Ram had reported the matter to Mohan Ram disclosing the names of the accused, Mohan Ram need not have insisted upon his going to the spot and verifying the fact. He could straight away make a report to the police at Churu. Explanation put forward by Mohan Ram for not reporting the matter to the police is that the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of the police station, Ratan-nagar but this explanation only appears to be a lame excuse because if Bhani Ram had narrated the story to Mohan Ram, he must have also indicated the place where the incident took place and this could be known to Mohan Ram even at that stage that that place was within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ratannagar. Even if it may be assumed that Mohan Ram came to know that the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ratannagar only after visiting the site then also nothing prevented him or Bhani Ram from going to police station, Ratannagar and reporting the matter but they did not do so. It is also strange to hear from both of these witnesses that even after reaching the spot they did not enquire from the persons who were guarding the dead body of Narayan about the incident. After all the purposes of Mohan Ram in going to the spot was verifying the facts at the spot and in that case he would have certainly talked to Bhoma Ram. Megharam Jat, Ramu Khot, Bhoma Godara, Vijay Das, Sagar Chamar etc. This conduct of these two witnesses also believes their statement. At the top of it the fact that Mohan Ram had been examined by the police after about seven days on 23rd June. Megharam Jat, Ramu Khot, Bhoma Godara, Vijay Das, Sagar Chamar etc. This conduct of these two witnesses also believes their statement. At the top of it the fact that Mohan Ram had been examined by the police after about seven days on 23rd June. 1979 gives rise to a suspicion that as a matter of fact Bhani Ram had not gone to Churu and had not met Mohan Ram at all and Mohan Ram has been created a witness later on. 12. The presence of the camel cart belonging to Bhani Ram at the spot may tend to create an impression that in all probabilities Bhani Ram must have been present on the spot and must have seen the accused coming and attacking the deceased Narain and his wife but merely because the camel cart belonging to him was found at the spot, it need not necessarily be presumed that he was with the cart because it is not uncommon that when a cart is taken on hire the owner of the cart may not go with it and the person who takes the cart on hire may himself drive it specially so when both of them are very well known to each other. If infact Bhani Ram had been there, he could not be expected to act in the unnatural manner referred to above. It will also not be out of place here to mention that in the inquest report which was the first document prepared by the SHO at the spot does not mention the prosecution story nor the presence of Bhani Ram at the time of the incident, Which ordinarily ssould have been expected to be mentioned.1 Looking to all these circumstances, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the learned Sessions Judge to place reliance even on the part of the statement of this witness to the extent of his being present at the time the accused reached the spot and opened the attack. 13. Now when the statement of Bhani Ram as also that of Mohan Ram cannot be believed, we are left with the bare testimony of Smt. Manni. Learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance upon her statement and has found her to be a witness of truth. 13. Now when the statement of Bhani Ram as also that of Mohan Ram cannot be believed, we are left with the bare testimony of Smt. Manni. Learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance upon her statement and has found her to be a witness of truth. Unfortunately on a closer scrutiny of the statement of this witness we are unable to find her to be a witness of sterling worth or a .witness on whom unhesitating and implicit reliance can be placed. We shall record our reasons for disbelieving her a little later. First we think it proper to refer to the medical evidence which will have a great bearing on the question of appreciation of the evidence of Smt. Manni. PW 4 Dr. Khem Chand had examined Smt. Manni on 15th June, 1979 at 2.40 PM and found the following injuries on her person: (1) Diffused swelling 4" x 2" in between both scapular region of back. Injury was simple by blunt weapon. (2) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the right occipite parietal region of scalp. This injury was also simple by blunt weapon. He further found duration of these injuries to be between 12 to 24 hours. 14. Dr. Khem Chand also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Narain and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the left cheek, obliquely. Injury is simple by sharp weapon. (2) A lacerated wound 2" x 3/4" x 1/4" in the left frontal region of scalp. Injury is simple by blunt weapon. (3) A lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1/2" on the left occipital parietal region of scalp obliquely, Injury is simple by blunt weapon. (4) An incised wound 2-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" on the right side of occipital region in its either part with fracture of occipital bone, oblique in direction. Injury is grievous by sharp weapon. (5) A lacerated wound 3-1/2" x l-1/4"x 1" on the right fronts parietal region. Obliquely with fracture of underneath bones. Injury is grievous by blunt weapon." (6) Diffused swelling at the lower end of Rt. forearm, with compounds fracture and dislocation of Rt. elbow joint and both bones of Radius and ulna were visible through wound and blood was oozing from the wound. Injury is grevious by blunt weapon. Obliquely with fracture of underneath bones. Injury is grievous by blunt weapon." (6) Diffused swelling at the lower end of Rt. forearm, with compounds fracture and dislocation of Rt. elbow joint and both bones of Radius and ulna were visible through wound and blood was oozing from the wound. Injury is grevious by blunt weapon. (7) Incised wound semilunar in shape 1" x 1/2" x 1-1/2" with fracture of Lt. lower part of humerus. Injury is grievous by sharp weapon. (8). Rt. hand below wrist joint is completely cut and separated and was. lying down away from the body. Injury is grievous by sharp weapon.. (9) Stab wound 1/2" in diameter and l"deep on the Rt. leg in the middle and fracture of both Tibia and fibula bones and diffused swelling all around the leg was present. The fracture was compound. Injury is grievous by sharp weapon. (10) Stab wound on the lateral part of Lt. leg middle part diameter 1/2" and 3/4" deep. Injury is simple by sharp weapon. (11) Multiple bruises transversely and vertically and of different sizes present on the whole back. Injuries are simple by blunt weapon. 15. Now in view of this medical evidence, we shall consider the evidence of Smt. Manni. Smt. Manni states that as, soon as the accused came towards, them while they were proceeding with, the camel cart, accused.Triloka gave a gandasi blow on her head Naurang gave a blow with the axeon the head of her husband Narayan and accused Narayan, gave barchi blow also on the head of the Narayan. Rest of the accused gave lathi blow to Narayan deceased. According to this statement we should have expected a injury with sharp-edged weapon on the head of Smt. Manni but according to the injury report Ex.P/3 as also the statement of Dr. Khem Chand there was no injury with a sharp-edged weapon on her person and the only injury, on her head was a simple injury with a blunt weapon. According to this statement we should have expected a injury with sharp-edged weapon on the head of Smt. Manni but according to the injury report Ex.P/3 as also the statement of Dr. Khem Chand there was no injury with a sharp-edged weapon on her person and the only injury, on her head was a simple injury with a blunt weapon. It may be stated here, that in her statement Smt. Manni has; tried to explain the presence of injury with a blunt weapon on her head by saying that Triloka had given the blow with the wrong side of the gandasi on her head but this clearly appears to be an after thought in as much as when a person speaks of receiving an injury with a sharp-edged weapon normally it should be presumed that it was from the sharp side of the weapon with which the blow was struck- unless it is stated in the very first instance that the blow had been given with the blunt side of the sharp-edged weapon. In the first information report as also in the statement before the police as also in the opening part of the, examination-in-chief, in the Court Manni had clearly stated that Triloka had given gandasi blow on her head and did not state at that time that it was from the wrong-side of the gandasi. It was later on that probably it dawned on her to show as to how only a minor injury with a blunt weapon came to be sustained by her on her head. Therefore this explanation does not appear to be convincing and plausible. It was also tried to be explained, by the learned Public Prosecutor that even if a blow with the sharp side of the gandasi had been given on the head of Smt. Manni, the impact on the head itself may not have been of any great force because the odhni and the, hair on the head of Smt. Manni must have come in between and, therefore, the blow with a sharp-edged weapon may only have caused a simple injury appearing to be with a blunt weapon. But we are unable to accept this contention also. But we are unable to accept this contention also. If such had been the position then we should have expected a cut on the odhni as also on the hair of Smt. Manni but neither the doctor has stated so in the injury report or in his statement before the Court nor the police has otherwise established these facts. Therefore, we are unable to accept the statement of Smt. Manni that Triloka had inflicted gandasi blow on her head. Apart from this discrepancy about the injury on her head. The age of the injury also does not confirm with the circumstances of the case. According to Smt. Manni this incident had taken place at about 6.00 AM on 15.6.1979. She was examined by the doctor at about 2.40 PM on the same day that is after about eight hours. However, according to Dr. Khemchand injuries on her person were between 12 to 24 hours old, that means injuries could not have been received within 12 hours of the examination This further shows that the injuries found on the person of Smt. Manni could not have been received at about 6.00 AM in this alleged incident. 16. The medical evidence further believes the evidence of Smt. Manni, when we look at the injuries on the person of deceased Narayan. Narayan had in all 11 injuries on his person. Injury No. 8 shows that his right hand blow wrist joint had completely been cut-off and separated and was lying down away from the body. Injury No. 9 is stated to be stab wounds of about 1/2" diameter and injury No.10 was of 1/2" diameter and 3/4"deep. Injury No. 9 was on the right leg whereas injury No. 10 was on the left leg. 17. The injuries on the person of Narayan deceased would go to show that apart from sharp edged weapons and blunt weapons, some pointed weapon was also used in inflicting these injuries causing punctured wounds. According to the statement of Smt. Manni, the three accused Narayan, Naurangram and Trilokaram had barchi axe and gandasi respectively and others had only lathis. Thus according to her, none of these accused persons was armed with a pointed weapon capable of causing punctured wounds. According to the statement of Smt. Manni, the three accused Narayan, Naurangram and Trilokaram had barchi axe and gandasi respectively and others had only lathis. Thus according to her, none of these accused persons was armed with a pointed weapon capable of causing punctured wounds. This gives rise to a presumption that either apart from these accused persons some more persons were there or any of these persons was having a pointed weapon which further shows that Smt. Manni is not coming forth with the true story. Either she is concealing the presence of some other person or she had herself not seen the incident at all. The mere presence of an injury on her person cannot be a sure test of her being present at the time of this incident because as shown above neither the injury corresponds to the weapon by which the injury is said to have been inflicted nor it corresponds to the time of the incident. Further even for the weapons, namely barchi, axe and gandasi, which have been found to have been recovered from the three accused Narayanram, Naurangram and Trilokaram. Dr. Khem Chand Sharma has stated that injuries Nos. 8, 9 and 10 could not have been caused by any of these weapons. Injuries No. 9 and 10 are stab wounds whereas injury No. 8 is one by which the right hand below wrist joint is completely cut and separated and was lying down away from the body. Dr. Khem Chand says that none of these three weapons could have caused punctured wounds. He further states that injury No. 8 could have been inflicted by a weapon which must have a very sharp edge and none of these three weapons had such a sharp edge. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that the statement of Smt. Manni in respect of the injuries on the person of Narayan also could not have been inflicted in the manner alleged by her and at least these three injuries clearly go to show that some other weapons must have been used in inflicting these injuries on the person of Narayan. 18. Smt. Manni states that after this incident she went to the village and informed Bhomaram Khichar, Megharam, Bhomaram Godara, Vijay Das, Puran Chamar and Ramu Khot of this incident and the last named three persons were sent to keep guard over the dead body. 18. Smt. Manni states that after this incident she went to the village and informed Bhomaram Khichar, Megharam, Bhomaram Godara, Vijay Das, Puran Chamar and Ramu Khot of this incident and the last named three persons were sent to keep guard over the dead body. However, except Vijay Das P. W. 1 none of these persons has been produced in evidence to corroborate the statement of Smt. Manni The conduct of Smt. Manni in informing these persons of the incident immediately after the occurrence was certainly relevant and admissible in evidence and if it had corroborated by those persons to whom it had been narrated as alieged by Smt. Manni, it would have lent considerable support to the version of Smt. Manni but with holding of these witnesses gives rise to a presumption that if they had been produced they would not have supported the story given by Smt. Manni and, therefore, a very strong presumption arises against the prosecution for withholding them. Not only that these persons other than Vijay Das had not been produced Vijay Das himself does not at all corroborate the version given by Smt. Manni. All that he states is that he had kept guard on the dead body at the instance of one Dalaram. Now, who this Dalaram is and how he had asked Vijay Das to go to the spot and keep guard over the dead body, is not at all known. He does not say that he had been informed by Smt Manni about this incident and had been asked by her to keep guard over the dead body. He, of course, appears to be a witness to the inquest report. 19. Then as already stated above, she is an interested witness being the wife of the deceased Narayanram and is also inimical towards the accused persons as Narayanram had been prosecuted for the murder of Bhagirath and the accused persons are the kith and kin of Bhagirath. Naurangram is his real brother and Narayan, Kanaram, Nandram and Jeewanram are his cousins. Trilokaram had appeared as a prosecution witness against Narayanram in the case of murder of Bhagirath and thus Smt. Manni must certainly have a hostile attitude against them. 20. It may also be mentioned here that the story put forward by Smt. Manni also stands believed from the site inspection made by the Investigating Officer. Trilokaram had appeared as a prosecution witness against Narayanram in the case of murder of Bhagirath and thus Smt. Manni must certainly have a hostile attitude against them. 20. It may also be mentioned here that the story put forward by Smt. Manni also stands believed from the site inspection made by the Investigating Officer. According to Smt. Manni when she saw the accused approaching, she and Narayan tried, to take shelter by the side of the camel cart and it was there that they were struck by the accused. However, site plan and site inspection note which have been proved by Ram Prasad do not support this stand in as much as the dead body has been found lying at point No. 1, whereas camel cart has been found at a distance at point No. 6. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that injuries on the person of Narayan and Smt. Manni were inflicted while they were having cover of the camel cart. The exact distance between place No. l and No. 6 has not been indicated in Ex. P. 6 but Shri Ram Prasad, PW 11 has stated that the distance between these two spots was about 40 ft. Again, according to Smt. Manni they were going to Churu, not by the regular way but by the way going through Potiwala, which is a circuits route. In the first place, it has not been explained by her why this circuits route was taken. In the second place, the site plan does not show that as a matter of fact the incident had taken place just on the route on which the camel cart was proceeding The marks of the cyres of the camel cart have been shown by dashes in the site plan and the dead body of Narayan has been shown to be lying at a distance from these marks. This also further goes to suggest that incident did not take place in the manner alleged by Smt. Manni. 21. It will also not be out of place to point out that according to the prosecution story the attack was launched on Narayan because he had been released on bail after his conviction in the case of murder of Bhagirath. This also further goes to suggest that incident did not take place in the manner alleged by Smt. Manni. 21. It will also not be out of place to point out that according to the prosecution story the attack was launched on Narayan because he had been released on bail after his conviction in the case of murder of Bhagirath. Therefore, the grouse must have been against Narayan and not against his wife Smt. Manni but according to Smt. Manni, Trilokaram first attacked her and gave a gandasi blow on her head. Further Trilokaram was not directly connected with the family of Bhagirath nor had any special grouse against the deceased Narayan. Therefore, it could not be expected of him to have opened the attack first before the other assailants who were nearer in relation to the deceased Bhagirath could have attacked Narayan. 22. From all these circumstances, the statement of Smt. Manni becomes highly doubtful and we have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept her testimony or agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this respect. The learned Sessions Judge has implicitly relied upon the evidence of this witness mainly on account of the fact that she is a stamped witness in as much as she had received injuries in the course of this incident but as already stated above, the fact that she received injuries in the incident itself is highly doubtful. In these circumstances the possibility that both Smt. Manni and Bhani Ram may not have witnessed the occurrence at all and may have come to know of the death of Narayan later by some source and then they made up a story as if they were eye-witnesses cannot be ruled out. Bhani Ram may have been available to Smt. Manni to make up the story as it does appear that he had a soft corner for the deceased Narayan as he had appeared as defence witness for him in the earlier murder case and he has also an axe to grind against his own son Trilokaram and must have found this opportunity handy to rope him in. 23. The story put forward by Smt. Manni and Bhani Ram further gets shrouded in doubt from the fact that although the accused are shown to have been named in the F. I. R. dated 15.6.1979. 23. The story put forward by Smt. Manni and Bhani Ram further gets shrouded in doubt from the fact that although the accused are shown to have been named in the F. I. R. dated 15.6.1979. There is nothing to show that they were not available to the police earlier. 24. If the evidence of Smt. Manni also thus becomes doubtful, then there is no other material on record which may establish the prosecution story and connect the accused with the crime. 25. The result, therefore, is that the charges have not been brought home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, they are entitled to acquittal. 26. The appeal of Narayanram stands abated as he has expired during the pendency of the appeal. 27. The appeal of the rests of the appellants, namely Naurangram, Trilokaram, Gopalram, Jeewanram, Nandram and Kanaram is allowed. The convictions and sentences passed against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu by his judgment dated 6.10,80 are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Jeewanram, Trilokaram and Gopalram are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Naurangram Nand Ram and Kanaram are in custody and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.,