Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-10-1987 by which, the Addi. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur, convicted the appellants as under: charan Singh: under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Bachchu Singh under sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months r. I. 2. Ram Charan on 15-6-1986 at 2 p. m. lodged a report at Police Station, Roopwas, alleging that on the same day in village Nagla Khan in the morning while taking bath in the village pond some quarrel developed between Han Singh sb Kangi Ram and Durga Singh sb Patriva. Han Singh reported the matter to his mother Smt. Harpyari and his brother Charan Singh. Charan Singh and Harpyari went to Smt. Ranla, mother of Durga Singh and wife of Patriva (deceased ). The two ladies while discussing picked up quarrel and on intervening by others the situation was saved. Thereafter Charan Singh called his younger brother Bachchu Singh from the mine. Then Patriva boarded his wife in the bus to lodge the report and he was going on bicycle to Police Station. Then Charan Singh and Bachchu Singh came in the village, took lathis in their hand, and stated that they kill will Patriva before his arrival at Police Station. Charan Singh and Bachchu Singh took cycles and followed Patriva. After some time there was rum our that Patriva was murdered by Charan Singh and Bachchu Singh. The villagers took a tractor trolly and came to the spot where they found the cycle of Patriva and they were informed that the dead body of Patriva has been taken to Roopwas. When the villagers were coming towards Roopwas, near the shop of Ravindra Singh Sarpanch they found the dead body of Patriva living on the ground and by the side of dead body Gopal, Mangla Ramji Lal and Smt. Rama wife of Patriva were found. They took the dead body of Patriva in the tractor and came to Police Station. on this report the police registered a case under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and started the investigation. They took the dead body of Patriva in the tractor and came to Police Station. on this report the police registered a case under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and started the investigation. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted and according to the opinion of the doctor Patriva died on account of throattling leading to asphyxia and death. After completing the usual investigation the police submitted challan against the appellants. ( 2 ) THE Trial Court framed charge against Charan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and against Bachchu Singh under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in suport of its case. The accused-persons have denied all the allegations and no defence evidence was adduced by them. The learned Trial Court found accused Charan Singh guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Bachchu Singh guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as mentioned above. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants argued that there is no evidence against accused appellant Bachchu Singh and the learned Trial Court has committed error in convicting him it was also argued that according to prosecution there are only three eye-witnesses i. e. Ramji Lal (P. W. 2), Mangla (P. W. 3) brother of deceased and Gopal brother-in-law of deceased. According to the prosecution story some quarrel had taken place between Han Singh and Durga Singh while taking bath in the pond then some quarrel took place between Mst. Rama and Mst. Rampyari and then when Patriva and his wife were going to report the matter the accused-persons murdered Patriva. ( 5 ) WE have perused the statements of these eye-witnesses and Ram Charan (P. W. 1 ). Accroding to Ex. P. 2, the panchnama, Patriva had injuries on the back in the form of contusions, swelling on the right elbow, swelling on the testicals and marks of contusions on the neck. According to postmortem report (Ex. P. 4) the cause of death was throattling. In the report Ex. P. 1 Ram Charan has not mentioned that the accused-persons pressed the neck of Patriva who died on account of throattling. According to postmortem report (Ex. P. 4) the cause of death was throattling. In the report Ex. P. 1 Ram Charan has not mentioned that the accused-persons pressed the neck of Patriva who died on account of throattling. What he has stated in the report that he heard the village that Patriva has been murdered by Charan Singh and Bachchu singh and then along with other village people went in the tractor and came to the spot where dead body was lying. So Ram Charan is not an eye-witness. He could not say whether before dodging the report he was informed by Ramji Lal,. Mangla and Gopal the Patriva was beaten and murdered by the accused-persons. Ram Charan was, informed, that Patriva was murdered by throattling. In spite of this information he has not mentioned this fact in the report Ex. P. 1. ( 6 ) THERE are only three eye-witnesses and their statements have been minutely perused and we have also gone through the entire evidence Ramji Lal (P. W. 2) has stated that he saw Charan Singh and Bachchu Singh going on cycle. They were empty handed and it means that they were not carrying any weapon in their hands. The village people told him to follow the accused-persons in order to avoid any further quarrel. He followed the accused persons on cycle while. Mangla and Gopal followed him on feet. When he reached at a distance of one mile he saw the accused-persons beating Patriva with stones. On account of stones beating Patriva received injuries, he fell down on the ground and died. He has also stated that accused Charan Singh pressed the neck of Patriva. Gopal and Mangla also arrived there and then the accused Persons ran away. In the cross examination he has stated that from a distance of one furlong he saw Patriva being beaten by both the accused persons with stones. According to him they were hitting stones at the back of Patriva. Then he stated that Charan Singh set on the chest of Patriva and pressed the neck. He has also stated that he has not seen any mark of injury on the neck of Patriva. He was confronted with the statement Ex. D. 2 recorded during investigation where he has not mentioned that the accused persons were hitting stones at Patriva. Then he stated that Charan Singh set on the chest of Patriva and pressed the neck. He has also stated that he has not seen any mark of injury on the neck of Patriva. He was confronted with the statement Ex. D. 2 recorded during investigation where he has not mentioned that the accused persons were hitting stones at Patriva. He has also stated that the accused persons ran away from the place of incident before the arrival of Mangla and Gopal. In the Statement Ex. D. 2 he has stated that both the brothers Were beating Patriva. Bachchu Singh was hitting by lathi but he has denied to have given this statement and thus contradicted his statement. In the cross examination in chief he has deposed that when Charan Singh was pressing the neck of Patriva Gopal and Mangla also arrived there and then the accused persons ran away. But from the cross-examination it reveals that Ramji Lal reached there and asked Gulab to bring water and at that time Mangla and Gopal arrived there. Both the accused-persons ran away before the arrival of Mangla and Gopal. So according to Ramji Lal Mangla and Gopal are not the eye-witnesses. They arrived at the spot when the accused persons after beating Patriva ran away. Then Ramji Lal has stated that Charan Singh and Bachchu Singh were empty handed. It means that they were not carrying any weapon with them but according to statement Ex. D. 2, Bachchu Singh was having lathi in his hand. ( 7 ) MANGLA (P. W. 3) is the brother of deceased Patriva In his examination-in-chief he bas stated that village people told him, Gopal and Ramji Lal to see that they may not quarrel and so Ramji Lal went on cycle while he and Gopal on foot following the accused-persons. He and Gopal from a distance of 70-80 paces saw both the accused-persons beating Patriva with fist and stones. Bachchu gave leg blow also. Charan pressed the neck of Patriva then the accused-persons ran away. He has also stated that when the accused persons were going they uttered that they will. murder Patriva before his arrival at the Police Station. When confronted with the Police statement Ex. D. 3 he has stated that he has deposed in the same manner but he does not know why this has not been written in the police statement. He has also stated that when the accused persons were going they uttered that they will. murder Patriva before his arrival at the Police Station. When confronted with the Police statement Ex. D. 3 he has stated that he has deposed in the same manner but he does not know why this has not been written in the police statement. Then he was confronted with the portions A to B, C to D, E to F and he has denied to have given this statement. So he has contradicted his own police statement. ( 8 ) GOPAL (P. W. 5) in his examination-in-cheif deposed the same statement as of Mangla. In the Court statement he has stated that he saw Charan Singh pressing the neck of Patriva so he claimed himself to be an eye-witness. But in the police statement Ex. D. 1 he has stated that Ramji Lal had reached before them at the place where Patriva was lying and when they reached there Ramji Lal told them that Charan Singh has throattled the neck of Patriva. It means that Gopal was not an eye-witness. Gopal and Mangla both reached together so Mangla was also not an eyewitness. Both these witnesses were informed by Ramji Lal that his neck was pressed by Charan Singh. ( 9 ) MST. Rama (P. W. 2) has stated that there was a quarrel between his son Durga Singh and Han Singh at the pond of the village. Charan Singh and Harpyari came to her house and told that Durga Singh has beaten Han Singh. Then the quarrel took place between both the ladies. Charan Singh told his mother that he will finish Durga Singh just now. Then her husband told her to have bandage in the hand from Roopwas and at 8 a. m. her husband took her to bus stand Roopwas and she was made to sit in the bus. She came to bus-stand Roopwas and waited for her husband for about an hour. Then her husband told her to have bandage in the hand from Roopwas and at 8 a. m. her husband took her to bus stand Roopwas and she was made to sit in the bus. She came to bus-stand Roopwas and waited for her husband for about an hour. When she was returning in the way near a house she saw the dead body of her husband where Ramji Lal, Mangla and Gopal were sitting.- These three persons informed her that Charan Singh and Bachchu Singh had murdered her husband In the cross-examination she has stated that in her presence Ramji Lal, Mgla and Gopal told the S. H. O. that Charan Singh and Bachchu had murdered Patriva. She has stated that she has no relationship with Gopal and Mangla. She has stated that she does not know the name of father of Gopal. She does not know whether fathers name of Gopal is Teja. Then she has admitted that Gopal is her real brother. So this is the character of this witness Mst. Rama. So According to her statement she is not an eye-witness. Mangla (P. W. 3) in the cross-examination has stated that Sarpanch reached at the shop where the dead body was lying and village people also arrived there. Ram Charan, Shobha Ram, Lekha and Shyam Lal also came there and saw the dead body of Patriva and along with these persons Mst. Rama also arrived there. He has stated that when he followed Ramji Lal from the village Mst. Rama was in the village. It means that accused-persons followed Patriva on cycle and at the instance of villagers when Ramji Lal followed them, Mangla and Gopal followed Ramji Lal and at that time Mst. Rama was in. the village. So the entire story that Mst Rama and her husband Patriva went to village Roopwas is incorrect. ( 10 ) THE Investigating Officer Ale Ahmed (P. W. 7) has admitted that Ram Charan while lodging report Ex. P. 1 and giving statement Ex. D. l has not stated that Charan Singh pressed the neck of Patriva. So it seems that the prosecution has developed the story of pressing the neck because according to postmortem report Patriva died on account of throattling. P. 1 and giving statement Ex. D. l has not stated that Charan Singh pressed the neck of Patriva. So it seems that the prosecution has developed the story of pressing the neck because according to postmortem report Patriva died on account of throattling. There was no case of pressing neck or throattling but in order to corroborate the postmortem report the witnesses were made to say that Charan Singh pressed the neck of Patriva. This development creates doubt in the prosecution story. Unless a case is made out or is establised against the accused-person. beyond reasonable doubt, it will be unsafe to convict the accuss-persons. In. this present case after going through the entire prosecution evidence minutely we are of this opinion that the prosecution has failed to appreciate its case beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses are unreliable and have not come with true version in the Court. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and has committed error in convicting the appellants and finding that the case has been established against them. ( 11 ) IN view of our discussion above we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. ( 12 ) AS a result, the appeal is accepted Accused Charan Singh is not found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian. Penal Code and accused Bachchu Singh under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, their conviction by the Trial Court is set aside and both the appellants are acquitted Accused Bachchu Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled He need not surrender. Accused appellant Charan Singh is in jail. He may be released forthwith, if not required in my other case. Appeal accepted.