S.S. BYAS, J.—The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2. Bharatpur dated June 25, 1988 by which accused Dharm Singh was convicted under Section 302 and Ram Charan. Atiroop and Maharaj Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further under go one months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The four appellants before us are real brothers being the sons of Girraj Singh Gujar of village Nagla-Rarodia, Police Station, Bayana, District Bharatpur. Pw-1 Sardarsingh is the uncle of the appellants being the real brother of their father Girraj Singh. Girraj Singh and Sardar Singh (PW-1). had one more brother Ram Singh. The deceased victim Bhagwan Singh aged about 22 years was the son of Ram Singh. 3 Around 12 00 hours on 16-11-1986 Bhagwan Singh was coming from the well of Karan Gujar with a plough and was going to his field When Bhagwan Singh reached near the dol of the fields of Ramkhilari and Harsukh Lal Jatavs, the appellants emerged out from the bushes where they had hidden themselves. Accused Dharm Singh was having a pharsa and the remaining three Ram Charan, Atiroop and Maharaj Singh had lathies. They opened onslaught on Bhagwan Singh and inflicted blows to him with their weapons. Bhagwan Singh raised cries. PW-1 Sardar Singh, PW-3 Raja Ram, PW-4 Ram Swaroop and PW-6 Pyare Singh who were in their fields nearby rushed to the spot Bhagwan Singh became unconscious on the spot. PW-1 Sardar Singh and some other persons took Bhagwan Singh in a bullock cart to the Government Hospital, Bayana where he was declared dead by the doctor. Sardar Singh went to the police station, Bayana and presented written report Ex.P.1 of the incident at about 4-30 p.m. on the same day. The police registered a case under Section 302/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh PW-9 went to the hospital and prepared inquest report Ex P.3. He also inspected the site and prepared the site-plan Ex.P.5. He lifted the blood stained soil from there and seized it. The autopsy over the victims dead body was conducted on the same day by Dr. K.N. Sakhlecha, the Medical Officer-in-charge, Primary Health Centre, Bayana. A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh PW-9 went to the hospital and prepared inquest report Ex P.3. He also inspected the site and prepared the site-plan Ex.P.5. He lifted the blood stained soil from there and seized it. The autopsy over the victims dead body was conducted on the same day by Dr. K.N. Sakhlecha, the Medical Officer-in-charge, Primary Health Centre, Bayana. The doctor noticed the following anti-mortem injuries over the victims dead body : (a). External 1. Incised wound 3" x 1/3" Bone deep. Left side of parietal bone 4" away from left pinna of ear-grievous sharp. 2. Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/3" x 1/3" right occipital region 4" away from right pinna of ear simple sharp, 3. Contusion 2" x 3/4" right elbow joint-simple blunt, 4. Abrasion with clotted blood 1/4" x l/6" right knee joint simple blunt, 5. Contusion with abrasion 3" x 2" right Dorsal site of hand—1/3 x 1/6" simple blunt, 6. Bruise 3" x 1-1/2" lt. upper 1/3 of lt. fore arm simple blunt, 7. Bruise-3" x 1-1/2" lt. middle 1/2 of it. forearm simple blunt, 8. Bruise—4" x 1/2" right side of back right scapular region-simple blunt, 9. Bruise—3" x 1-1/2" right side of back 8, 9 ribregin simple blunt, 10. Abrasion— 1/6" x 1/6" middle 1/2 of lt. scapular-simple blunt, and 11. Contusion 1" x 1/2" and abrasion of 1/4" x 1/3" lt. Side of lower 1/3 of left leg-simple blunt. , (b) Internal There is fracture of left parietal bone with haemotoma beneath the bone present and over Brain substance full of haemotoma below the parietal bone region. Due to rupture of middle menigeal artery. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to fracture, on parietal bone which has caused rupture of middle menigeal artery. The Autopsy report prepared by the doctor is Ex P.22. The blood stained dhoti and kameej of the deceased were seized and sealed. Ail the four accused were arrested on 9-12-1986 and in consequence of the informations furnished by them, three lathies and one pharsa were recovered. The pharsa was recovered at the instance of accused Dharm Singh. The blood stained clothes of the deceased, lathies and pharsa were sent for chemical examination to the S.F.S.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur from where report Ex.P.13 was received. The pharsa was recovered at the instance of accused Dharm Singh. The blood stained clothes of the deceased, lathies and pharsa were sent for chemical examination to the S.F.S.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur from where report Ex.P.13 was received. As per findings mentioned in the report Ex.P.13, human blood of B group was detected on the clothes of the deceased and pharsa. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a crime report against the four accused in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur who framed charges under Sec. 302 against the accused Dharm Singh and under Section 302/34 IPC against the rest three. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced trial. They refuted the entire prosecution story and claimed absolute innocence. It was contended by them that the deceased Bhagwan Singh was not only their real uncles son but also otherwise closely related to them. The wife of accused Atiroop was the real sister of the wife of the deceased Bhagwan Singh. Bhagwan Singhs father died in his child-hood and it was the father of the appellants who had brought up him and had arranged his marriage. There was no motive or reason for the appellants to kill Bhagwan Singh. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and file some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held the charges duly brought home to the appellants. They were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set- Aggrieved against their conviction, the accused have come-up in appeal. Dr. K.N. Sakhlecha, who had conducted the medico legal autopsy over the victims dead body could not be examined by the prosecution because he was not available. Dr. K.N. Garg P.W.11 was examined to prove that the post-mortem report Ex. P. 22 was in the handwriting of Dr. Sakhlecha and bears his signatures. Dr. Garg P.W. 11 had worked with Dr. Sakhlecha and, as such, he claimed to be acquainted with the hand-writing and signatures of Dr. Sakhlecha. 4. We have heard Mr. Biri Singh-learned counsel for the appellants and the learned P.P. Shri Rizwan Alvi. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. Sakhlecha and bears his signatures. Dr. Garg P.W. 11 had worked with Dr. Sakhlecha and, as such, he claimed to be acquainted with the hand-writing and signatures of Dr. Sakhlecha. 4. We have heard Mr. Biri Singh-learned counsel for the appellants and the learned P.P. Shri Rizwan Alvi. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. In assailing the conviction, the first contention raised by Mr. Biri Singh is that Dr. Sakhlecha was not examined by the prosecution PW-11 Dr. K.N. Garg who was examined to prove the post-mortem report Ex. P. 22 did not state that the injuries found on the victims dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was argued that it was open to the prosecution to elicit an opinion from Dr. Garg PW-11 as to whether any of the injuries or all the injuries taken together was or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The infirmity pointed out by Mr. Biri Singh is there and we will deal with it later on. 6. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution examined four ocular witnesses namely PW-1 Sardar Singh, PW-3 Raja Ram, PW-4 Ram Swaroop and PW-6 Pyare Singh. Out of them PW-6 Pyare Singh turned volte face and lent no support to the prosecution. He stated that he saw none beating Bhagwan Singh. He was declared hostile and despite cross-examination, nothing helpful to the prosecution could be elicited from him. In the cross-examination by the accused, he stated that the marriage of the deceased Bhagwan Singh was arranged by the appellants father Girraj Singh. 7. PW-4 Ram Swaroop also stated nothing materially beneficial to the prosecution. He stated that he simply saw Bhagwan Singh lying wounded. He expressed his ignorance as to who had caused injuries to him. Ofcourse, he stated that he had seen the appellants running away from the place of incident. In cross-examination he stated that he was looking after his cows grazing nearby the place of incident. In his police statement Ex.D.4, he stated that he was coming to Bayana and he saw PW-1 Sardar Singh, PW-3 Rajaram and PW-6 Pyare Singh taking Bhagwan Singh in a bullock cart towards Bayana. Bhagwan Singh had wounds on his person. In cross-examination he stated that he was looking after his cows grazing nearby the place of incident. In his police statement Ex.D.4, he stated that he was coming to Bayana and he saw PW-1 Sardar Singh, PW-3 Rajaram and PW-6 Pyare Singh taking Bhagwan Singh in a bullock cart towards Bayana. Bhagwan Singh had wounds on his person. He was confronted with the aforesaid portions A to B and C to D in Ex.D. 4 and he denied to have stated these portions before the police during the investigation. He is a resident of village Thanadangh which is more than three miles away from the place of incident. In his cross examination he admitted that PW-1 Sardar Singh is the husband of his sister. In Ex-D. 4 he also stated that deceased Bhagwan Singh made a declaration before him that he was assaulted and beaten by the appellants. When he was confronted with the aforesaid portion in Ex. D. 4, he again denied to have stated so during the investigation. He has thus made contradictory statements throughout which cannot be reconciled. His village is more than three miles away from the place of incident and we are unable to imagine that he was grazing his cows near-about the site of crime. His presence on the spot is highly doubtful. His claim to have seen the appellants running from the place of incident does not appear to be true and credible. His testimony does not inspire confidence. 8. We are then left with PW-1 Sardar Singh and PW-3 Rajaram. Both of them claimed to have seen the incident and the appellants striking blows with pharsa and lathies to Bhagwan Singh in the field of Ram Khilari Jatav. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge treated them as witnesses of truth and accepted their evidence sufficient and reliable to convict the appellants. It was strenuously contended by Mr. Biri Singh that both these persons have falsely introduced themselves as ocular witnesses of the incident. It was argued that PW-3 Rajaram is a resident of village Thanadangh, nearly three miles away from the place of incident. His claim that the deceased Bhagwan Singh had called him to plough his field on that day of incident is highly unusual and unconvincing. Moreover, the field of Bhagwan Singh is situate at some distance from the site of incident. His claim that the deceased Bhagwan Singh had called him to plough his field on that day of incident is highly unusual and unconvincing. Moreover, the field of Bhagwan Singh is situate at some distance from the site of incident. He had no reason to come to the place of incident. A part from that it was argued that there were major contradictions in what he stated during the trial and in what he stated during the investigation. He is also a close relative of PW-1 Sardar Singh and the real nephew of PW-4 Ram Swaroop who was the brother-in-law of Sardar Singh Sardar Singh had his own axe to grind against the appellants. It was further contended that PW-1 Sardar Singh is a total lier and his claim to have seen the incident is absolutely unfounded. Mr. Biri Singh took us through the statements of these witnesses and pointed out the various contradictions which according to him are sufficient to discard what they testified on oath. 9. While assessing the testimony of PW-1 Sardar Singh, one thing certainly stands in his favour and that is that he is the real uncle of the deceased and the appellants. Naturally therefore, the learned PP. argued that his testimony cannot be lightly brushed aside or skipped over. We have carefully gone through the evidence of these two Witnesses. 10. It is true that the usual presumption is that a testimony given on oath is true unless it stands successfully shattered and shaken in cross examination However, this presumption is not a rule of universal application. It has its own limitations. It is a creditability and intrinsic worth of evidence which counts for assessing the guilt of the accused. In order to judge the credibility of a witness, one should not remain content by merely giving face value to his testimony. One should look into the surrounding circumstances as well as the probability to find «out the trustworthiness of witness. There is no rule of law or prudence that if a witness is neither interested nor inimical, the Court must accept his evidence without testing it by, the yard-stick of probability and without considering other factors and features of the case. Even if there is no enmity, there are persons who give false evidence on account of many reasons. The evidence of these two witnesses therefore requires a close scrutiny. P.W.. Even if there is no enmity, there are persons who give false evidence on account of many reasons. The evidence of these two witnesses therefore requires a close scrutiny. P.W.. 1 Sardar Singh is the person who lodged the first information report Ex P. 1. He stated during trial that he was standing at about 12.00 hrs. on the day of incident in. the field of Sitaram Brahmin. He noticed the four appellants hiding themselves in the Sarcandas (bushes) standing on the dol of the fields of Sitaram and Ram Khilari Jatav. The deceased Bhagwan Singh came from the well of Karan Gujar with a plough and was going towards his village. When he happened to pass in the field of Ram Khilari, the appellants emerged out from the sarcandas and made an assault on him In the F.I..R. Ex.P.l lodged by him, he stated that at that time he was working in his field and hearing the out cries of Bhagwan Singh he rushed to the spot In his cross-examination, he admitted that his field is situate in between the well of Karan Gujar and his village and the distance in between these two places is one mile. Thus, his field is situate nearly half a mile from the place of incident. If he was working in his field in the noon of the day of incident it was impossible for him to hear the cries from a distance of half a mile and reached the spot to see the incident. He was confronted with the F.I.R. Ex.P.l and his police statement Ex.D.1 wherein he stated that he was on his field. He denied to have stated so in the F.I.R. Ex P. 1 and the police statement Ex. D. 1 it may be stated that the F.I.R. Ex P.l is a written one and. therefore, it cannot be imagined that the police fabricated it. Likewise in Ex P. 1 and Ex.D.1 he did not state that he was standing in. the field of Sitaram Brahmin when the deceased was coming from the well of Karan Gujar This contradiction appearing in the statement given during trial on. one hand and the F.I.R. Ex.P.l and police statement Ex.D1 on the other hand is very material and significant. If the version given in the F.I.R. Ex.P.l and police statement Ex. D.l is accepted, he could not have seen the incident. one hand and the F.I.R. Ex.P.l and police statement Ex.D1 on the other hand is very material and significant. If the version given in the F.I.R. Ex.P.l and police statement Ex. D.l is accepted, he could not have seen the incident. In his statement during trial he stated that P.W 3 Rajaram was already present near the place of incident. Unfortunately, in FIR. Ex.P.1 and police statement Ex.D. 1 he did not state so. In Ex. P. 1 and Ex. D. 1 he stated that Rajaram and he reached the place of incident from the fields on hearing the cries. Again he was confronted as to how he stated so in Ex, P. land Ex. D. 1, he could furnish no explanation except that he did not state so in them. In Ex. P. 1 and Ex. D. 1 he did not state that he and Rajaram tried to intervene and rescue the victim. However, in his statement during trial he stated that when he and Rajaram tried to intervene, the accused threatened them that they would also meet the same fate in case they tried to intervene. Again this is a material contradiction and remains unexplained by the witness. In his cross-examination he stated that he saw Rajaram PW3 standing in the field of Sita Ram Brahmin where he also reached. This fact again has not been mentioned in Ex.P. 1 and Ex.D. 1. In Ex.P. 1 and Ex D. 1 he stated that Rajaram also reached the place of incident from his field on hearing the cries of Bhagwan Singh. This contradiction has a material bearing in assessing his testimony. In Ex. P. 1 and Ex. D.J he stated that P.W. 4 Ram Swaroop also reached the place of incident from his field but according to Ram Swaroop P.W. 4, he was grazing the cows. We have seen that Ram Swaroop also stands contradicted by his own previous statement Ex. D. 4 wherein he stated that he was going to Bayaha and in the way he reached the place of incident. Again he stated in the F.I.R. Ex. P. I that the incident had taken place on account of old enmity. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no litigation took place between the deceased and the appellants. He did not state as to what was the old enmity between the appellants and the deceased. Again he stated in the F.I.R. Ex. P. I that the incident had taken place on account of old enmity. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no litigation took place between the deceased and the appellants. He did not state as to what was the old enmity between the appellants and the deceased. It would be proper at this stage to point out that the marriage of the deceased was arranged by the appellants father Girraj Singh some months before the incident. The wife of the deceased Bhagwan Singh is the real sister of the appellant Atiroop. If there was old enmity as stated by this witness, the appellants father would have never arranged this marriage and the sister of the wife of accused Atiroop would not have been married to the deceased Bhagwan Singh. The version of old enmity is a myth invented by P.W. 1 Sardar Singh to show the motive for murder. 11. Thus the testimony of PW.1 Sardar Singh stands discredited on account of his making contradictory statements from time to time. His testimony is self-contradictory on material points which have a direct bearing on his creditability. He is not a witness of truth and his testimony inspires no confidence. It has no intrinsic worth to maintain the conviction of the appellants. 12. There is again a reason as to how he is interested in the case. In his cross-examination he admitted that negotiations are going on to get the widow of the deceased Bhagwan Singh remarried to one of his sons. It appears that he is apprehensive that in case the appellants are not convicted, they would obstruct the negotiation. He admitted that he has five sons and none of them is a married one, though the eldest was born in Samvat year 2014 who should be now more than 32 years in age. All that has prompted him to falsely implicate the appellants in the murder of Bhagwan Singh. 13. The two eye-witnesses have stated that the deceased Bhagwan Singh had gone to the well of Karan Gujar and was returning to his field from there with a plough. When the site of incident was inspected by the investigating officer, no plough was found there. What happened of the plough has not been stated by any witness. 13. The two eye-witnesses have stated that the deceased Bhagwan Singh had gone to the well of Karan Gujar and was returning to his field from there with a plough. When the site of incident was inspected by the investigating officer, no plough was found there. What happened of the plough has not been stated by any witness. Karan Gujar who may be the best person to state as to whether the deceased had taken the plough from him has not been produced in evidence by the prosecution. This infirmity creates a big void in the prosecution case. 14. P.W. 3 Rajaram is a resident of village Thanadangh, nearly three miles away from the place of incident. Normally a man of such a distance is not expected to be present at the place where the offence is committed. He stated that he was called by Bhagwan Singh to plough his field and he went to his field with his bullocks. Bhagwan Singh went to the well of Karan Gujar to bring the plough from there. When Bhagwan Singh did not return, he went towards the well of Karan Gujar and stood in the field of a Brahmin. The appellants were hiding themselves in the Sarcandas standing on the dols of the fields of the Brahmin and Chamar. BhagwanSingh came with the plough in the field of Chamar. The accused came out from the Sarcandas and made an onslaught on him. He again stands contradicted on several material points. In his police statement Ex.D.3. he did not state that he went and stood in the field of the Brahmin when Bhagwansingh was coming from the Karans well. In Ex. D.3 he stated that he was working in the field of Bhagwansingh when the incident bad taken place and from there they rushed to the spot. There is nothing to corroborate him when he was invited by Bhagwan Singh to work in his field on that day. As such, his very claim to have gone to the field of the deceased Bhagwan Singh is highly doubtful. In his cross-examination he admitted thai the field of Bhagwan Singh is at a distance of three or four fields from the place of incident and one standing in the field of Bhagwan Singh cannot see the place of incident. He was therefore, not in a position to reach the field of incident. In his cross-examination he admitted thai the field of Bhagwan Singh is at a distance of three or four fields from the place of incident and one standing in the field of Bhagwan Singh cannot see the place of incident. He was therefore, not in a position to reach the field of incident. He is the real nephew of PW.4 Ram Swaroop whose sister is married to PW.1 Sardar Singh. In Ex D. 3, he did not state that he saw the incident while he was standing in the field of the Brahmin. It appears that PW-1 Sardar Singh borrowed his services to testify against the appellants. His going to the field of Bhagwan Singh is highly doubtful and that renders his testimony unworthy of belief. 15. There is yet another formidable reason to include us that the appellants have been falsely implicated. The reason is the want of motive-good, bad or different. We have stated earlier that wives of the deceased Bhagwan Singh and the appellant Atiroop are real sisters. It was the appellants father Girraj Singh who had arranged this marriage only some months before the incident. There was no bad blood between the appellants and the deceased Bhagwan Singh. Normally, murders are not committed without reason or motive. It is only on ideal saying that when there is direct evidence to connect the culprit with the commission of the murder, motive recedes in the back-ground and poses its significance. Every murder is committed with some back-ground. No one takes the life of an other without some reason or motive. The want of motive at times is a decisive factor in assessing and evaluating the testimony of a witness The want of complete motive coupled with the fact that the wives of the deceased Bhagwan Singh and the appellant Atiroop are real sisters persuades us that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-1 Sardar Singh and PW-3 Rajaram. The appellants had no motive or reason to kill Bhagwan Singh. 16. Our attention was drawn by the learned Public Prosecutor that human blood of B group was found on the pharsa recovered at the instance of accused Dharm Singh and the clothes of the deceased victim. This should be taken as aceessive evidence for maintaining the conviction of appellant Dharm Singh at least. 16. Our attention was drawn by the learned Public Prosecutor that human blood of B group was found on the pharsa recovered at the instance of accused Dharm Singh and the clothes of the deceased victim. This should be taken as aceessive evidence for maintaining the conviction of appellant Dharm Singh at least. It is true that human blood of the same group was found on the clothes of the deceased and the pharsa. But in itself it is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. Moreover, the appellant Dharm Singh was arrested on 9-12-1986 that is to say nearly after 25 days of the incident. The disclosure statement Ex. P. 18 was made by Dharm Singh before the investigating officer on 17-12-1986. No reasons are there for arresting the accused so late. The information was given again after 8 days of the arrest. Nobody is expected to be a fool to preserve the weapon of offence for more than one month to create evidence against himself. Apart from that the presence of the same group of blood is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration in assessing the guilt of the accused. In itself, this parts of evidence is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the appellants. 18. In the result, the appeal of accused 1) Dharm Singh, 2) Ram Charan, 3) Atiroop and 4) Maharaj Singh is allowed. Their conviction under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC and the sentences awarded to them are set-aside. They are acquitted of the offences they were charged with. Accused Ram Charan, Atiroop and Maharaj Singh are already on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Accused Dharm Singh is in jail and shall be forthwith set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.