JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 18-3-86 passed by the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu. Appellant Mohan Singh, in Appeal No. 203/86 was convicted under section 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and six months R.I respectively. Appeal No. 73/87 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against Mani Ram, Daya Nand and Hukmi Chand who were convicted by the trial court under section 323 IPC and sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by each of them, and against whom leave to appeal was granted by this Court. Leave to appeal was refused by this court against Mohan Singh, Raj Kumar and Desh Ram accused persons. 2. Sunder Lal (I W-l) submitted a written report (Ex P. 1) to the Station House Officer Police Station Buhana, on 2-11-1984 at 9.15 p m. stating therein that on that day. at about 4.30 p.m he and his father left their house for their field, where they found that Mohar Singh (accused-appellant) alongwith his brothers Mani Ram, Daya Nand and Hukmi Chand, and his son Rajkumar and Desh Ram s/o Mani Ram, were cutting leaves from the tree`Jantia. He and his father asked them not to do so, whereupon Mohar Singh, appellant, inflicted a severe blow by an axe which was in his hand, on the head of his father Mohan Singh, as a result of which, his scalp fractured. Hukmi Chand also gave two or three lathi blows. When he (Sunder Lal s/o Mohan Singh) raised hue and cry, his mother Smt Basanti (PW-9). his uncle Hanuman (PW-2) and Leeladhar son of his uncle, came, who were also given beating. Sunder Lal was alow given a lathi blow on his head by Daya Nand. He brought his father and other injured persons in the camel cart, to the police station His father Mohar Singh was not likely to survive because of his serious condition. 3. On the aforesaid written report (Ex. P. 1), regular FIR No. 82/1984 (Ex. P. 21 was registered which was received by the Magistrate on 5.11.1984 at 10.30 p.m. Injured Mohar Singh was sent to the Hospital at Singhana where he was advised to go to Khetri Copper Project Hospital. While, be was being taken there, Mohar Singh died on the way. His post-mortem was conducted on 3.11.1984 by Dr. Ram Niwas (PW-8). 4. P. 21 was registered which was received by the Magistrate on 5.11.1984 at 10.30 p.m. Injured Mohar Singh was sent to the Hospital at Singhana where he was advised to go to Khetri Copper Project Hospital. While, be was being taken there, Mohar Singh died on the way. His post-mortem was conducted on 3.11.1984 by Dr. Ram Niwas (PW-8). 4. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused persons, in the court of Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Session Judge. Learned Session Judge, after trial convicted and sentenced the appellant Mohar Singh as aforesaid, while convicted Hukmi Chand, Dayanand and Maniram under section 323 IPC and sentenced each of them to the imprisonment already undergone, and acquitted accused Raj Kumar. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment of the trial court as also record of the case. 6. Learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of so-called eye witnesses PW-1 Sunder Lal, PW-2 Hanuman, PW-3 Leeladhar and PW-9 Basanti as also on the recovery of the axe at the instance of the accused, which was found to be stained with human blood. The grouping of blood could not be done because of dis-integration. According to the trial court PW-4 Sheotaj and PW-5 Prabhu were not the eye witnesses, though they have been examined as such by the prosecution Sunder Lal, who had lodged the FIR and who is the son of deceased, had been examined as PW-1. In his statement recorded in the court, he has admitted that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D. 1) was recorded by the police on 27.11.1984, wherein he has altogether changed the whole story. When he was examined in the court, he has given an altogether different story and has introduced PW-2 Hanuman, PW-3 Leeladhar and PW-9 Smt. Basanti as eye witnesses. In his court statement, he has stated that on 2.11.19.34 at about 2.30 or 3 p.m. he and Hanuman and Ram Singh went to the field and saw Rajkumar cutting the leaves of Jatia tree, in their field He asked Rajkumar not to do so. In his court statement, he has stated that on 2.11.19.34 at about 2.30 or 3 p.m. he and Hanuman and Ram Singh went to the field and saw Rajkumar cutting the leaves of Jatia tree, in their field He asked Rajkumar not to do so. whereupon Raj Kumar got down from the tree and went to his house abusing him After about two hours, when they were in their field, they heard some noise and came towards the Jatia tree and saw Mohar Singh appellant cutting the leaves of the tree with five other persons standing there with sticks in their hands. Mohar Sinrh deceased and Mst. Basanti asked them not to cut the leaves. Mohar Singh (appellant) thereupon asked Mani Ram to kill them. Mohar Singh came down from the tree and inflicted an axe-blow on the head of the deceased Mohar Singh, father of Sunder Lal. Hukmi Chand gave lathi blow on the left side of his head, as a result, he fell down and thereafter, other accused persons gave beating to him. Members of the complainant party were also given beating by other accused persons. PW-1 has been cross-examined at length and he was confronted with his written report (Ex. P. 1) as well as his statement (Ex. D. 1) recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence of PW-1 and we are not impressed nor persuaded to come to the conclusion that he is a witness of sterling worth. Site plan (Ex. P. 3) was prepared at his instance on 3.11.1984 but his statement was not recorded under section 161 Cr. P C. on that day, rather it was recorded on 27.11.84. There is no explanation furnished by the prosecution, either by Sunder Lal himself or by the Investigating Officer, Prabhu Singh (PW-10) as to why his statement was recorded after 25 days. In view of this evidence of Sunder Lal has become all the more doubtful. Reference in this connection may be made to Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 SC 135 ). 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to Ranbir and others v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1973 SC 1409 ). 9. We have gone through that case also. Reference in this connection may be made to Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 SC 135 ). 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to Ranbir and others v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1973 SC 1409 ). 9. We have gone through that case also. In that case, a plausible explanation was furnished by the Investigating Officer, inasmuch as the witness was not available to the police as he had left for an unknown place. Ex P 1 the written report is the first version of the whole incident. The version given in Ex D- 1 and as given in the court, is quite different and PW-1 Sunder Lal has tried to introduce five eye witnesses, out of which two have not been believed by the trial court itself and we find that the other three eye witnesses PW-2 Hanuman, who is uncle of Sundar Lal, PW-3 Leeladhar, who is cousin brother of Sunder Lal and mt. Basanti. mother of PW-1 Sunder Lal, also do not inspire confidence. They were not eye witnesses as per Ex. P 1 or even according to Ex D I- This is a definite improvement made by PW-1 Sunder Lal when he was examined in the court The statement of Hanuman Ram was recorded by the police on 4.11.1984, whereas that of Leeladhar and Mst. Basanti were recorded on 27.11.1984. Moreover, F.I.R. also had reached the Magistrate after three days which is also a very suspicious circumstance. There is no motive for the incident and the genesis which has come on record, shows that it was a very trifle matter. According to the defence, the tree (Jatia) was on the border of the lands of the complainant and the accused party, and it was under the bona fide belief that the tree belonged to the accused that they were cutting the leaves. It was a very trifle matter. There was no pre-meditation and the incident happened all of a sudden on a very petty matter Moreover, the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries sustained by the accused Mani Ram. It was a very trifle matter. There was no pre-meditation and the incident happened all of a sudden on a very petty matter Moreover, the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries sustained by the accused Mani Ram. All the prosecution witnesses are related; and in view of the fact that we are not persuaded to accept the evidence of PW-1 Sunder Lal, who is none else than son of the deceased; who has lodged the FIR in his own had and has introduced other eye witnesses, his evidence is very doubtful and shaky. Learned trial court also has acquitted two of the accused persons and has not believed the prosecution witnesses as against those two accused persons Rajkumar and Deshraj, meaning thereby that the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated them and where is the guarantee that the same set of prosecution witnesses has not falsely implicated the other accused persons. Learned trial court has also noticed that the three statements of PW-1 Sunder Lal are quite different, but according to him, the date is not very material, which, in our view, is not the connect view for the reasons given earlier. It is really very unfortunate that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. the accused-appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt for the delay in recording the statement of prosecution witnesses by the police and for changing the whole story by PW-1 Sunder Lal in his three statements FIR, statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. and the statement recorded in court. 10. Thus, appeal No. 203/86 is allowed, the judgment passed by the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu convicting and sentencing the appellant Mohar Singh under section 302 and 324 IPC is set aside. He is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is in jail. He may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 11. Appeal No. 78-87 filed by the State of Rajasthan is hereby dismissed.State-appeal dismissed. *******