M. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29. 8. 1978 passed by Sri S. R. Bhargava the then lind Additional Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitan Area. Kanpur, by which he convicted Manphool-appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. and under section 323/34 I. P. C, and Ramlal appellant under section 302/34 I. P. C. and under section 323 I. P. C. and has sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and three months, Rigorous imprisonment respectively thereunder. ( 2 ) MANPHOOL and Ramlal appellants are real brothers. They are sons of Maiya Deen. Asha Ram deceased and Hon Lal informant (P. W. 1) were also brothers. All of them were residing in the same village i. e. Sikaula Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur. ( 3 ) PRIOR to consolidation in the village, which took place in the year 1961, a plot of land originally belonged to Asha Ram deceased and his brother Horilal. Out of the said plot, chak no. 1 was carved out and was allotted to Maiyadeen. The remaining piece of land, which remained with Asha Ram deceased and his brother Horilal, was marked as Chak No. 53. In between these two chak nos 1 and 53, there was a water channel. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution there were seven shisham trees towards the south of the aforesaid water channel, i. e. on the northern extremity of chak no. 53 belonging to Asha Ram deceased. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 7. 9. 1974 at about 9. 00 A. M. when Asha Ram deceased went to his field, he found both the appellants wrongfully demolishing the old water channel and digging a new water channel in his field with a view to include three shisham trees in their own plot. When Asha Ram deceased restrained the appellants from doing so, they started hurling abuses. Asha Ram deceased protested and asked the appellants not to dig, any water channel in his field. At that time Ramlal appellant is said to have exhorted Manphool appellant to kill Asha Ram, on which Manphool appellant took out a pistol and fired a shot at Asha Ram deceased which hit him and he fell down. When Manphool was trying to reload the pistol, then Horilal informant hit Manphool to ice or thrice with a stick. At that time Ramlal appellant is said to have exhorted Manphool appellant to kill Asha Ram, on which Manphool appellant took out a pistol and fired a shot at Asha Ram deceased which hit him and he fell down. When Manphool was trying to reload the pistol, then Horilal informant hit Manphool to ice or thrice with a stick. Thereafter Ram Lal appellant beat Horilal with his lathi and caused him injuries. Horilal ran for 10 to 15 steps. Witnesses were attracted to the place of occurrence and the appellants were challenged on which the appellants ran away. Horilal then took his brother Asha Ram to police section Ghatampur, situate at a distance of 12 miles where Asha Ram handed over a typed report of the incident. Asha Ram was shifted to Kanpur, where be subsequently succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on 8. 9. 1974 at 6. 30 A. M. ( 5 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P. W. 1 Horilal is the informant. P. W. 3 Baratilal and P. W. 4 Surjan are the eye- witnesses. P. W. 2 Brijpal Singh, Sub Inspector, had prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body of Asha Ram. P. W. 8 Girja Shanker was the constable clerk. He had received written report of the incident and had registered the case. P. W. 9 Constable Vishwanath Singh had taken Asha Ram deceased and Horilal injured to the hospital for getting them medically examined. ( 6 ) P. W. 5 Dr. S. S. Agarwal was, the then Medical Officer Ursula Hospital, Kanpur. Re had examined the injuries of Horilal and Asha Ram and had found following injuries on their person: Injuries of Horilal 1. Contusion 5 cm X 2 cm on the outer side of right fore-arm upper 1/3rd with traumatic swalling around it. Injuries of Asha Ram: 1. Multiple fire-arm wounds in an area of 11 cm X 10 cm on the left side and middle of abdomen 1 cm above and to the left of urinatialus Adv. X-Ray) No scorching. No blackening and no tattooing present. Wounds of entrance 2. Abrasion 2 cm X 1. 5 cm right side of chest lower part. 3. Contusion 3 cm X 2 cm on the proximal phalanx left little finger. Advised X-Ray. X-Ray) No scorching. No blackening and no tattooing present. Wounds of entrance 2. Abrasion 2 cm X 1. 5 cm right side of chest lower part. 3. Contusion 3 cm X 2 cm on the proximal phalanx left little finger. Advised X-Ray. ( 7 ) THE post mortem examination of the dead body of Asha Ram was conducted by Dr. Rajiv Lochan Garg on 8. 9. 1974 at 4. 30 P. M. He had found the following ante-mortem in-, juries on the dead body: 1. 5 long stitched wound in left upper paramedian region with 10 stitches. 2. Multiple gun shot wound on 4 X 3 area left to the injury no. 1, 1/8 in diameter some cavity deep and rest skin deep. 3. Incised wound 1/2 with one stitch, having rubber corrugated tube 3 lateral and above to umbilicus. 4. Abrasion 1 X 1/4 on left ring finger. ( 8 ) ON internal examination, the doctor found the membranes of the skull congested, left chamber of the heart empty and right chamber of the heart half full Abominal walls were stitched in lawyers under injury no. 1, Peritoneum was congested. Abdominal cavity contained purulent fluid 6 oz. In small intestines, there was stitched wound IT one foot proximal to local junction. Both small and larger intestines were congested. Spleen and kidjleys were also congested. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused by peritonitis and shock. Doctor made it clear that the ante mortem injuries of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Doctor prepared post mortem report Ext. Ka-lo. ( 9 ) THE investigation in this case was done by P. W. 6 Pyarey Lal Upadhyaya. This case was registered at the police station in his presence. At the police station itself, he had recorded the statements of Asha Ram deceased and Horilal, informant etc. On the next day, i. e. on 8. 9. 1974, he went to the place of occurrence, where he recorded the statements of Surjan, Baratilal and others. He inspected the place of occurrence on that date and prepared the site-plan thereof. ( 10 ) THE trial court examined Dr. S C. Tandon as C. W. 1. the then Medical officer Korha Jahanabad, Fatehpur, who bad examined the injuries of Manphool appellant on 7. 9. He inspected the place of occurrence on that date and prepared the site-plan thereof. ( 10 ) THE trial court examined Dr. S C. Tandon as C. W. 1. the then Medical officer Korha Jahanabad, Fatehpur, who bad examined the injuries of Manphool appellant on 7. 9. 1974 at 200 P. M. It may be observed that in the said medical examination Manphool was found to have sustained the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm X 1 cm X 1/2 cm on the right side of back side of head it 2. Lacerated wound 7 cm X 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of front of head 7 cm from the left eye brow. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm circular X 1 cm on the top of head. 4. Diffused swelling 5 cm X 3 cm on the left scalp. ( 11 ) THE accused-appellants denied the case of the prosecution. Manphool appellant further stated that the aforesaid water channel was being dug from one day prior to the incident and that when on the 2nd day the digging of the channel reached near the Shisham trees, Munshi Lal, Horilal and Dhaniram started digging the said naali in his field so that the shisham tress may come towards the side of their field, on which an objection was raised but they did not oblige resulting in exchange of abuses. He further stated that he picked up a stick and struck Horilal informant with the same. Then Horilal went away after saying that he would be returning Soon and after some time Hon Lal, along with Baratilal and Asha Ram deceased, came to the place of occurrence. He further stated that there was altercation between the parties at that time resulting in grappling and marpit. He also stated that when he and Asha Ram were grappling with each other, Baratilal fired a shot which hit Asha Ram deceased and that in the said marpit, he i. e. Manphool, also sustained injuries: ( 12 ) IN defence the appellant examined Ganga Charan as D. W. 1. ( 13 ) THE learned Trial Court has believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. ( 13 ) THE learned Trial Court has believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. ( 14 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State and have perused the record with care. ( 15 ) IN this case Manphool-appellant had also sustained injuries His injuries were proved, by examining Dr S. C. Tandon as a Court Witness. The injuries sustained by Manphool-appellant have been reproduced above. As will be found from the same Manphool appellant had suffered all the four injuries on vital part of his body, i. e. on his head. The said injuries were quite serious in nature and according to the doctor the same were caused at about the time of the incident. When the prosecution found that the injuries sustained by Manphool-appellant were quite serious in nature and it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the same were either self-inflicted or were caused by a friendly band, it had to admit at the stage of evidence that the said injuries were caused to Manphool-appellant at the time of the incident. However, the fact remains that the said injuries of Manphool-appellant were not referred to and explained either in the First Information Report or in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. At that stage the prosecution suppressed the said injuries and made no effort to explain the same. We are of the view that in a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: 1. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable. 3. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable. 3. That in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person -of the accused it is rendered probable 80 as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. This is also the view which was taken by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar. 1 ( 16 ) TO repeat we are of the opinion that when in this case the injuries suffered by manphoolappellant were very severes in nature and by no means were superficial and also when the said injuries were sustained by him at the time of incident and the prosecution suppressed the same at the stage of filing the first information report or even at the time when the statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating officer under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. then it Shows that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and had not presented the true version and that the version given by witnesses subsequently at the stage of evidence was difficult to believe. ( 17 ) THE learned counsel for the State, had however, urged before us that probably the Investigating Officer had been won over by the appellants and that therefore, he did not record the statements of the witnesses. In our view the said argument is without any merit, because the record does not bear out that the Investigating Officer bad sided with the appellants. 111 this context it would be relevant to point out that so far as Horilal-informant (P. W. 1) is concerned he had clearly admitted in his evidence that he had been interrogated by the Investigating Officer at the police station itself. Besides, the First Information Report, which was presented by Asha Ram deceased at the police station did not refer to the serious and severe injuries sustained by Manphool appellant at the time of the incident. Besides, the First Information Report, which was presented by Asha Ram deceased at the police station did not refer to the serious and severe injuries sustained by Manphool appellant at the time of the incident. 17-A. The learned Counsel for the State took us through the evidence given by P. W. 1 Horilal informant, P. W. 3 Baratilal and (P. W. 4) Surian and tried to urge that their evidence was reliable and should be believed. We are however, afraid that the same can not possibly be done. The evidence given by these three eye-witnesses does not inspire confidence. Horilal (P. W. 1) and Baratilal (P. W. 3) were the accused persons in the cross-case filed by the defence against them. As regards (P. W. 4) Surjan, his son Munshi was also an accused in the said cross-case. All these three witnesses were, therefore, quite interested witnesses. Their evidence has to be seen with due care and caution. Both (P. W. 3) Baratilal anti (P. W. 4) Surjan have denied that the Investigating Officer had recorded their statements. In this respect they have been belied by P. W. 6 pyareylal Upadhyaya, Investigating Officer. Besides, we are of the view that when the Investigating Officer had taken the statement of Horilal-informant there was no question for him to have not recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses. Horilal (P. W. 1) on his part stated that he had told the Investigating Officer that when Nanphool-appellant was going to re-load the pistol, he had struck him twice or thrice with stick. P. W. 6 Pyarey Lal Upadhyaya Investigating Officer has also belied him in this respect by stating that Horilal informant had not made any such statement before him. The said conduct of P. W. 3 Baratilal and P. W 4 Surjan by denying that they bad been examined by the Investigating officer and the conduct of P. W. 1 Horilal in wrongly stating that he had explained the injuries of tolanphool appellant in his statement made before the Investigating Officer shakes over confidence in the truthfulness of these witnesses. It appears that. It appears that. P. W. 3 Baratilal and P. W. 4 Surjan have intentionally and purposely denied that the Investigating officer had interrogated them because had they accepted the said interrogation, then they had no plausible explanation of their not explaining the injuries of Manphool appellant in their statements under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. ( 18 ) THE other circumstance which throws a doubt to the case of the prosecution and helps the defence is the local inspection made by the Investigating officer. It may be seen from the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer that the latter had found fresh earth only at place I marked in the site-plan. In our view when the Investigating officer had noticed the fresh earth, then had he noticed fresh earth at any other place, he would have certainly made a reference of tile same in his site-plan. The fact that the same was not done, shows that the Investigating officer at the time of his local inspection found fresh earth at point no. 1 only and not at any other place It may be served that the said place point no. 1, i. e. where fresh earth was found, was not situate on the northern boundary of the field of Asha Ram but was quite away from it. It may be noted that the said point no. it was on the northern boundary of the water channel which was running between the fields of Asha Ram deceased and Maya Deen. The said site-plan and the local inspection shows - that northern boundary of the field of Asha Ram deceased was found disturbed. It that is so, then the case of the prosecution is not proved that the appellants had dug any water channel in any part of his tiled-chak no. 53. It may not be out of place to observe at this place that P. W. 3 Baratilal has admitted in his evidence that the aforesaid water channel, which was in-between chak nos. 1 and 53belonging to the parties, was going straight meaning thereby that the said water channel was not curved or zig zag. 53. It may not be out of place to observe at this place that P. W. 3 Baratilal has admitted in his evidence that the aforesaid water channel, which was in-between chak nos. 1 and 53belonging to the parties, was going straight meaning thereby that the said water channel was not curved or zig zag. If the said water channel was going straight, then if the position of the said water channel is judged from the course of channel in between the adjoining western fields of Mayyadeen and Asha Ram and Dhaniram, shown in the aforesaid site-plan, then it becomes clear that no new water channel was possibly made in Chak belonging to Asha Ram deceased. Thus the local inspection made by the Investigating officer does not lend support to the case of the prosecution. ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the State bas referred to us the extracts of khasras from 1372 F. to 1378 Faslis filed by the prosecution which shoe that all the seven Shisham trees are recorded in Chak no. 53 belonging to Asha Ram, as also the admission of the appellants made by them in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C, that all the said Shisham trees were owned by Asha Ram and on the basis of the same he has tried to urge that when the said trees belonged to Asha Ram deceased they could only be the appellants who would have been benefited by disturbing the old water channel thereby including some of the shisham trees on their side. ft is true that on the basis of the aforesaid revenue record and the statements of the appellants, it can not be denied that the appellants were not owners of the said trees. The learned counsel for the appellants on the other hand has tried to urge that although Asha Ram deceased was owner of the said trees yet at the spot, the said trees were not on the side of Asha Ram deceased and it was only with a view to make the position clear, that the prosecution side on the date of the occurrence had tried to direct the water channel and include all the Shisham trees on their side of the chak. It may also be noted that Manphool appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. It may also be noted that Manphool appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. also tried to state like-wise shile giving reply to question no. 7. The aforesaid argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants finds some support from the admission made by P W. 4 Surjan. In his cross examination he admitted that at the time of occurrence Manphool had laid that he would not allow the water channel to be dug in his field. The question of Manphool appellant uttering the said words at the time of the incident could arise only when same effort was being made to take the water channel in his filed. Any way, the fact remains that at the time of the local inspection the northern boundary of the chak of Asha Ram was not found to have been disturbed. When that was so, he had no cause of grievance. All these circumstances point out that probably the prosecution has not placed the true facts and has suppresses the genesis and the origin of the: occurrence. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel for the State has urged before, us that the defence taken by the appellants was not true in this connection he has also pointed out to us that the. Cross case filed by the appellants has already ended in acquittal of Horilal informant and others. In our opinion even if it is found that the defence taken by the appellants was false, the same would not strengthen the case of prosecution. I n this respect reliance is placel upon Baldev Raj v. State of Himanchal Pradesh2 in which it was observed that even if the defence taken by the appellant was found to be false, the said fact by itself would not strengthen the prosecution case. ( 21 ) IN view of all that has been said and disc used above we are of the opinion that the prosecution in this case has failed to prove its case against the appellants or any of them beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of Manphool appellant under Sections-302 and 323/34 IP. C and that of Ramlal appellant under Section 302/34 and 323 I. P. C. are hereby set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. The appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of Manphool appellant under Sections-302 and 323/34 IP. C and that of Ramlal appellant under Section 302/34 and 323 I. P. C. are hereby set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties shall hereby stand discharged. (S. c.) .