G.K. SHARMA, J.—Sardarilal has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27th July, 85, passed in Sessions Case No. 39/84, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, by which, he convicted the appellant u/s. 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. One Madanpal submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at PS - Kishan-garhbas. alleging that the accused-appellant had caused injuries by knife, to his mother Kaushalya Devi. It was mentioned in the report that Kaushalya Devi was grazing her she-buffaloes near the godown in the noon, at about 1-0 clock, when Sardarilal came there, and inflicted knife-blows on her head and neck, and then ran away. Madanpal and his younger-brother Bahadur Singh had seen the appellant, Sardarilal inflicting those blows to Kaushalya Devi. It was further mentioned in the report that their father had died about 3 years back, and the appellant was seeking marriage with their mother Kaushalya Devi, and had told their mother that if she refused to marry him, he would murder her. Their mother had refused to marry Sardarilal, and so, he had taken revenge by inflicting knife-blows on her neck, which resulted in her immediate death. 3. On the above report, the police registered a regular FIR, and a case u/s. 302, IPC, was lodged. The investigating officer inspected the site, and prepared site-plan (Ex. P. 3). Accused Sardarilal was arrested vide arrest-memo (Ex. P. 7), who then gave information for recovery of weapon, and on the basis of that information, one Ballam was recovered vide memo (Ex. P. 9). The clothes of the deceased and the recovered Ballam were then sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), for examination; and the report in this regard is Ex. P. 14. Postmortem on the dead body of Kaushalya Devi was conducted by Dr. O. P. Gupta; and the post-mortem report is Ex. P. 8. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was coma and shock due to head-injury and excessive loss of blood from facial and lingual arteries and veins. Kaushalya Devi had 6 injuries, out of which 4 were incised wounds, 1 was stab-wound and 1 was bruise. 4. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused-appellant. The trial court framed charge u/s. 302, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, to establish its case, examined 11 witnesses. Kaushalya Devi had 6 injuries, out of which 4 were incised wounds, 1 was stab-wound and 1 was bruise. 4. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused-appellant. The trial court framed charge u/s. 302, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, to establish its case, examined 11 witnesses. The accused denied the allegations, and his contention was that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He examined one witness in his defence. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to law and the material on record, and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. His further argument was that there are contradictions in the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses. According to him, the witnesses are of no credibility, and the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its light perspective. It was also argued by him that initially, the case was of inflicting blows by knife, but, no knife has been recovered, and the police has subsequently changed the story from knife to Ballam. One Ballam has been recovered at the instance of the appellant, and that Ballam too does not connect the appellant with the alleged crime, he argued. His further submission was that the oral and the medical evidence in this case, are inconsistent and create doubt in the testimony of the alleged witnesses. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supporting the judgment of the trial court, argued that the case has been fully established against the appellant, and that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses. According to him, the eye-witnesses are the sons of the deceased, who had seen the infliction of the blows by the appellant. 8. We have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, perused the entire prosecution evidence as well as the relevant and material documents on the record. 9. Madanpal PW 1, who is son of the deceased and elder-brother of PW 2 Bahadur Singh, lodged the report (Ex. P. 1). According to this report, Madanpal and his younger-brother Bahadur Singh were the only eye-witness who had seen the occurrence. We have to see whether both these witnesses are reliable witnesses, and whether their testimony can be trusted. In the report (Ex. P. 1). According to this report, Madanpal and his younger-brother Bahadur Singh were the only eye-witness who had seen the occurrence. We have to see whether both these witnesses are reliable witnesses, and whether their testimony can be trusted. In the report (Ex. P. 1), Madanpal has narrated that his mother was grazing she-buffaloes near the godown. In their statements also, Madanpal and Bahadur Singh have stated that their mother was grazing cattle near the godown. Ex. P. 3 is the site-plan, wherein, place-A has been shown where the deed body was lying. So, according to the site-plan (Ex. P. 3), Kaushalya Devi was inflicted knife-blows at point-A. The godown is shown in the site-plan at place-F, and this godown is at a distance of about 28 paces from the point marked A. "The field of Moolchand is just near the place where the dead body was lying. So, it seems that the statement of the witnesses that Kaushalya Devi was grazing her cattle and there she was inflicted blows, is not correct. Actually, the dead body of Kaushalya Devi was lying near the field of Moolchand or say near the house of the accused. Thus, there is difference about the place of the alleged incident. 10. Madanpal PW I in the report (Ex. P. 1) stated that the accused had inflicted knife-blows. In their statements Madanpal and Bahadur Singh PW 2 have stated that knife-blows were inflicted to Kaushalya Devi. In the report (Ex. P. 1) at two places, it has been narrated that knife was used by the accused. In his police-statement u/s. 161, Cr. P. C. (Ex. D. 1), Madanpal has stated that kn[fe was used for inflicting blows, and this weapon knife has been narrated thrice, in his statement (Ex. D. I), which was recorded on 19th Aug., 84. Thereafter, on 25th Sept., 84. the police recorded another statement u/s. 161, Cr. P. C, of Madanpal, which is marked Ex. D. 2. In that statement (Ex. D. 2), the weapon Ballam was introduced. The witness stated that he had seen the inflicting of blows from a distance of about 25 paces, and that at that time, he had seen that the weapon was knife, but, it was not a knife, it was a Ballam. So, improvement has been made in the police-statement (Ex. D. 2), which was recorded after about 1-1/2 months of the alleged incident. So, improvement has been made in the police-statement (Ex. D. 2), which was recorded after about 1-1/2 months of the alleged incident. Even, in his court-statement, Madanpal was confronted with his police statement (Ex. D. 2), Parantu chaku na ho kar Ballam thaa" and his reply was that it had been wrongly written. He stated that he had never stated knife to be Ballam. So, what we find is that from the very beginning, Madanpal PW 1 has stated that knife was used by the accused-appellant, and he never stated that Ballam was used by him, for inflicting blows. So, how Ballam was introduced, is best known to the prosecution. 11. Bahadur Singh PW 2 also says about knife, and he does not say about Ballam. 12. Therefore, we find that the story that Ballam was used by the appellant, is a subsequent improvement and a concocted story. 13. Another aspect to note here is that the accused gave information for recovery of weapon, which is Ex. P. 12. In that information, he stated that he would get recovered one Ballam. He did not give information for recovery of any knife. The SHO, on his information, recovered one Ballam, vide memo (Ex P. 9). No knife has been recovered. Therefore, we find that the weapon ky which injuries were inflicted to Kaushalya Devi, was actually a knife, and not a Ballam. Here we would like to deal with the report of the FSL (Ex. P. 14). The seized Ballam was sent to FSL, for examination. The serologist has opined that the Ballam was stained with human-blood, but blood-group could not be ascertained and determined, as the blood on it, had disintegrated. So, the Ballam which has been recovered by the police as the weapon for committing the crime, has not been connected with the crime, in this case. Without blood-grouping, it cannot be said that the Ballam was used for inflicting injuries to Kaushalya Devi. It is, therefore, found that the introduction and recovery of the Ballam, is simply an improvement, which does not connect the appellant with the crime and which rather creates a great suspicion in the prosecution story. 14. There are material contradictions in the statements of the two alleged eye-witnesses. It is, therefore, found that the introduction and recovery of the Ballam, is simply an improvement, which does not connect the appellant with the crime and which rather creates a great suspicion in the prosecution story. 14. There are material contradictions in the statements of the two alleged eye-witnesses. Madanpal PW 1 has stated that at about 1 Oclock, he was taking his meal, at his house, when his younger-brother Bahadur came running and informed him that Sardarilal was beating their mother. At this, he himself and Bahadur went running to the place of occurrence, and there they saw that Sardara Sardirilal) was inflecting knife-blows on the neck, head, face and legs of Kaushalya Devi. In his cross-examination, this witness has said, that he used to go to school on cycle, and that on that day he had returned from the school, along with Veer Singh and Deepak. In his cross-examination, he has further said that when he reached his house from the school, his younger-brother was not present at the house. 15. Bahadur Singh PW 2, in his cross-examination, has said that while he was going out of his house, after taking his meal, Madan returned and entered the house. In the next breath, he says that while he was taking his meal, Madan had returned, Madanpal PW 1 has stated that Bahadur had not taken his meal before his arrival at the house. But, Bahadur PW 2 has given a different statement and according to him, he was taking his meal when Madan came. He has also stated that after his taking food, while he was going out of the house, Madan came. Then, Madan Pal PW 1 has stated that he and his brother Bahadur both had gone to Indrajeet, along with their sister, while Bahadur PW 2 has stated that after seeing the condition of their mother, Madan alone had gone to Indrajeet, while he remained with the dead body of their mother. Madanpal PW 1, in his cross-examination, has also said that Sardarilal never used to visit their house. But, Bahadur Singh PW 2 has stated that Sardarilal used to come to their house. He has also stated that Madan was not happy at this, and he was angry with Sardarilal for his coming to their house. 16. Here, we would like to go through the statement of Deepak DW 1. But, Bahadur Singh PW 2 has stated that Sardarilal used to come to their house. He has also stated that Madan was not happy at this, and he was angry with Sardarilal for his coming to their house. 16. Here, we would like to go through the statement of Deepak DW 1. Admittedly, Deepak had returned from school along with Madanpal PW 1. The alleged incident had taken place at about 1 PM. It means that Madanpal had returned from school prior to 1 PM. Deepak DW 1 has stated that he himself, Madanpal and Veersingh had left the school, at about 12.30 PM and reached Bagar at about 12.45 PM or 12.50 PM, and that as soon as they reached there, they were informed that the mother of Madanpal had died. He did not know, how she died. Bahadur Singh too did not tell them, how she died. In cross-examination, nothing was asked to this witness in order to discredit his testimony. So, from the statement of Deepak, it becomes clear that Madanpal PW 1 had arrived from school near about 1 PM, and when he came, he was told that his mother had died. So, Kaushalya Devi had already died before the arrival of Madanpal PW 1. Bahadur Singh, younger-brother of Madanpal did not tell anything about the death of then mother as to how it happened. So, because of the inconsistencies and the contradictions in the statements of both the alleged eye-witnesses, their testimony become suspicious. 17. The doctor who conducted the post mortem, has been examined as PW 7. At the time of the said examination, the weapon Ballam was not shown to him to prove that the injuries to Kaushalya Devi could be caused by that weapon. It was the duty of the prosecution to have shown the doctor, the Ballam and they should have obtained his opinion that the injuries to Kaushalya Devi could be caused by that Ballam. The prosecution has failed to prove such fact. Apart from this, the doctor, in his cross-examination, has said that the injuries, to Kaushalya Devi, were not possible to have been inflicted by one weapon only, He has also stated that then was less possibility that all the injuries could be caused by one weapon. So, there must have been more than one weapon used to inflict the injuries to Kausalya Devi. So, there must have been more than one weapon used to inflict the injuries to Kausalya Devi. The doctor in his cross-examination, has also said that injuries No . 2 & 3 could be caused by a different weapon than that which was used for casuing injury No. 1. Similar is the statement of the doctor regarding injury No 6. He has specifically stated that injuries Nos. 1, 2 & 3 could not be caused by knife. Therefore, the doctor also falsifies using of knife by the accused-appelliant. The trial court at page-2 of its judgment, has mentioned about the way of investigation, and also about the conduct of the investigating officer, and it has observed that it was not fair on the part of the investigating officer to have changed the weapon from knife to Ballam and created a new story. The trial court also mentioned that the matter should be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, so as to let him know how the case was investigated and about the negligent conduct of the investigating officer. We also endorse the opinion of the trial court, and hold that the investigating officer in this case, has very negligently conducted the investigation, and has falsely introduced the weapon, Ballam. It is very unfortunate that the case of knife was changed and new case of Ballam was introduced by the investigating officer. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant then argued that there are inconsistencies in the oral and medical evidence, and thus, the whole prosecution story becomes suspicious. To support his contention, he cited a number of case-laws. 19. In the case of Mohinder Singh vs. The State (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as under: "In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case it must prove the whole of the case." 20. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case it must prove the whole of the case." 20. In the case of Ram Narain vs. State of Punjab (2), it was observed as under: "Where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert, this is a a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case." 21. In the case of Mohar Singh vs. State of Punjab (3), it was observed as under: "The evidence of these witnesses also cannot be relied upon. They are in direct conflict with the medical evidence. While both the witnesses categorically state that the appellants assaulted the deceased with spades with which the earth was being dug out either from the sharp or the blunt side, the doctor (PW 1) who held the autopsy of the deceased has clearly stated that the injuries could be caused only by a Kassi. No question was put by the prosecution to the doctor whether any or all of the injuries on the deceased could be caused in the manner alleged by the witnesses, i.e., by a spade. In view of this glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, it will be extremely unsafe and hazardous to maintain the conviction of the appellants on such evidence." 22. In the case of Girdhari vs. State of Rajasthan (4), Justice Bhargava, who is one of the members of this bench, has held as under, while dealing with the contradictions of oral and medical evidence: "The inference is obvious that the prosecution witnesses have tried to implicate as many accused persons as possible for inflicting injuries on the deceased K. by Gandasis without least regard for truth and, therefore, their evidence cannot be believed." 23. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohanram (5) while dealing with oral evidence and medical evidence, it was held as under: "The next question emerging for answer is whether the medical evidence falsifying the statements of the eye-witnesses would lead to the inference that there is over-implication and exaggeration in the prosecution case so far as the Kherajram is concerned." It was further observed in the case of Sohanram (supra) as under: "In the present case, we find no reason to prefer the oral evidence to the medical evidence of the doctor that there was no injury caused by Jai Ex. 4 and are inclined to observe that the prosecution case about Kherajram participating in the crime and using Jai in causing injuries to Surtaram is demolished by medical evidence." 24. Thus, we find that the statements of both the alleged eye-witnesses in this case, namely, Madanpal PW 1 and Bahadur Singh PW 2, are contradictory to each other, and so, it would be unsafe to place reliance on their testimony. As observed above, another material aspect is that in the very beginning, the case was of using knife by the accused, for inflicting injuries, but, later on, it was changed to Ballam, and this improvement create a great doubt in the correctness of the prosecution story. It is also pertinent to note that no knife has been recovered, while one Ballam has been recovered, and then too, the Ballam has not been connected with the crime. There is material difference in the oral and medical evidence. When oral evidence is inconsistent, and the medical evidence and the opinion of the FSL do not connect the weapon with the crime, then, it was for the prosecution to have explained this inconsistency, and in case, there is no explanation, then, it is sufficient to discard the entire case of the prosecution. 25. In view of our discussion above, we are of the opinion that the trial court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for offence u/s. 302, IPC, which cannot be maintained. 26. In the result, the appeal is accepted. The appellant having not been found guilty of offence u/s. 302,IPC, is hereby acquitted. The conviction and the sentence passed against him by the trial court, are, therefore, set aside. The accused-appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.