JUDGMENT 1. - These three connected appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, whereby, he convicted the appellant Harphool for offence under Section 148, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I. He further convicted him for offence under Sec. 302/149, IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I. He also convicted Maniram, Bhagirath, Ram Ratan & Ramkumar for offence under sec. 147, IPC and sentenced to each of them to undergo 2 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' R.I. He further convicted them for offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149, IPC and sentenced each of them to further undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I. All the substantive sentences in respect of each accused-appellants shall run concurrently. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed, in short are that one Amru Ram Jat (PW 1) lodged an oral report on 23-3-1983 at the police station, Bhadra alleging that about 11/2 years prior to the present incident, there was a quarrel between his son Amilal and Harphool s/o Daulat Ram. There are strained relations between Amilal (deceased) and Harphool. On 24-3-83, there was marriage of Laxmi Narain's daughter in the village and `Barat' had stayed at the house of Harlal and sons of the informant were looking after the Baraties. At about 11.00 p.m. in the night, the informant heard the cries `Mare Re Mare Re' from the street. He went towards the site where from these cries were coming. After reaching in the street, he noticed Harphool accused assaulting Amilal, deceased with Gandasi and the other accused-persons Maniram, Ramratan, Bhagirath and Ramkumar assaulting him with lathies. There was bleeding from the injuries sustained by Amilal. The cries of Amilal and the informant attracted the presence of Kishnaram, Rawatram and Bhagirath and on `Lalkar' all the five accused-persons ran way. Injured Amilal fell unconscious. He was placed in a tractor trolley and was taken to Bhadra General Hospital. There was bleeding from the injuries sustained by Amilal. The cries of Amilal and the informant attracted the presence of Kishnaram, Rawatram and Bhagirath and on `Lalkar' all the five accused-persons ran way. Injured Amilal fell unconscious. He was placed in a tractor trolley and was taken to Bhadra General Hospital. The informant remained in the village to give a send off to the Barat. After the departure of Barat, Amruram went to Bhadra General Hospital, there he learnt that Amilal had been taken to Hissar Hospital for treatment. He also learnt that report had not yet been filed and he went to the police station and lodged the report. Upon report by Amruram, a case was registered u/ss. 307, 147, 148 and 149, IPC. After death of Amilal the case was converted into Sec. 302, IPC. from Sec. 307 IPC. After registering the case, the investigation was started. The Investigating Officer went to the site & prepared the site plan (Ex P.2) description of the site memo (Ex P.2A) and obtained control soil and blood stained soil and sealed them in packets and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The post-mortem of the dead-body of Amilal was got conducted. The post-mortem examination report is Ex P/16. The doctor while conducting the postmortem examination, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Amilal: (1) A stiched wound 8 cm in length is present on the right side of the Head starting from right mastoid bone and extending back wards on the occipital bone. (2) A stiched wound 5 cm in length present on the right occipital bone placed 3.5 cm. above the injury No. 1. On dissection on removing stiches both the wounds are bone deep. Haematoma present in the arrounding tissues Depressed fracture of the right occipital bone is present. Duramatter at the site of fracture is torn. Sub-archnoid haemorrhage on the right hemisphere of the brain. (3) A lacerated wound 1 x 4 cm. muscle deep present 2 cm below & post from the lobula of right ear. Clotted blood present in the wound and underlying tissue. (4) A contusion mark 7 x 4 cm present on the left side of the fore-head just above the left eye brow. S/c ecchymosis present Redish blue in colour. (3) A lacerated wound 1 x 4 cm. muscle deep present 2 cm below & post from the lobula of right ear. Clotted blood present in the wound and underlying tissue. (4) A contusion mark 7 x 4 cm present on the left side of the fore-head just above the left eye brow. S/c ecchymosis present Redish blue in colour. (5) Two abrasion marks present on the left side of face measuring 2 x 0.4 cm and 2 x 0.2 cms., respectively. They are situated 2 cm below the left Lat. Canthus of the left eye and I am below the medial canthns of the left eye respectively. Crest present. (6) Multiple contusion marks numbering ten are present on the back and outer aspect of the chest and abdomen in its right side. They measures in between 12 x 2.5 cm. and 25 x 2.5 cm. They lie in criss-cross manner. Kedish blue in colour, S/c ecchymosis present. On dissection 9 and 10 ribs on the right side are fracture at their lateral angle thereby rupturing the post, surface of right lobs of liver. Liver parenchyma is torn. The disphram on the right side is also ruptured. Haemospheritoneum is present. Blood is present in the right thorasic cravity. (7) Abrasion 1 x 0.4 cm. on the back of base of the right index finger. Crest prasent Gaseous distension of the intestines present. 3. Dr. Roshanlal, wdo prepared the post-mortem report, opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries No. 1, 2 and 6, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Accused Harphool, Ramkumar, Maniram and Bhagirath were arrested on 6-7-88 vide arrest Memos Ex, P/24 to Ex, P/27. A gandasi was recovered on the same day at the instance of Harphool vide Ex. P/30. Four lathies were also recovered, one each at the instance of the accused Ramkumar, Maniram, Bhagirath and Ramratan. The police recorded the statements of Rawatram and Nandram on 26-5-83 vide Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2 respectively. The statement of Laxmi Narain was also recorded on the same day vide Ex. D/5. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood-stained soil, Kachha, Payjama and Chola contained human blood. 4. The police recorded the statements of Rawatram and Nandram on 26-5-83 vide Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2 respectively. The statement of Laxmi Narain was also recorded on the same day vide Ex. D/5. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood-stained soil, Kachha, Payjama and Chola contained human blood. 4. The challan was put up in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, who in his turn, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge for trial. Due-charges were framed against these accused-appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. the accused Harphool denied to have committed any offence. He alleged that because of the strained relations with the complainant, he has falsely been implicated in this case. The accused Bhagirath also denied to have committed any offence and took the same plea. In their statements Ramratan, Ramkumar and Maniram also denied their participation in the offence and also denied that any recovery had been made at their instance. Considering the material on record including the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and the accused-persons, the material collected during investigation, which was put to the accused the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar came to the conclusion that the accused Harphool caused Gandasi injuries to the deceased and accused Ramkumar, Manikumar, Ramratan and Bhagirath caused lathi injuries to deceased Amilal and found Harphool guilty for the offence under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, IPC and other accused persons Ramkumar, Ramratan, Maniram and Bhagirath for the offence under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, IPC. He convicted them under the aforesaid sections respectively, and sentenced them as staled above. 5. Being aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar the accused-appellants Ramratan, Ramkumar and Bhagirath filed Appeal No. 58/86 and Harphool and Ramkumar filed appeal No. 107/86 and one Jail Appeal No. 92/86 was filed by Ramkumar. 6. We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg & Mr. Doongarsingh learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. S.K. Vyas, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B.N. Kalla learned counsel for the complainant. 7. The facts are not in dispute that Amilal deceased was taken from village Kunj to Bhadra Hospital in a serious condition. 6. We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg & Mr. Doongarsingh learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. S.K. Vyas, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B.N. Kalla learned counsel for the complainant. 7. The facts are not in dispute that Amilal deceased was taken from village Kunj to Bhadra Hospital in a serious condition. There, Dr, Subhash Rajput advised that the condition of the injured was serious and he should be taken to Hissar and referred the case to Hissar Hospital. In Hissar Hospital, injured Amilal expired at 11 a.m. on 25th. The post-mortem was got conducted. As many as 16 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In the opinion of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries No. 1, 2 and 6, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The first information report was lodged at 3 p.m. on 25.5.83. These facts are enough to hold that this is not a natural death but a homicidal death. 8. Now, the next question comes for consideration is, who is responsible for the injuries caused to the deceased Amilal, which resulted in his death. 9. Whether the story of the prosecution is to be believed or not, we have to look into the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The first attack of the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Garg was on the delay in lodging the first information report. Mr. Garg submitted that the incident as per the prosecution story took place at 11.00 p.m. on 24th while the first information report was lodged at 3 p.m. on 25th. The distance from the place of incident to the police station is 20 kms. The basic facts stated above are not in dispute whether the prosecution story is believed or not. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. B.N. Kalla, while explaining the delay submitted that the incident took place at 11.00 a.m. on 24th May Injured Amilal was taken to the Hospital at Bhadra at that very time which is at a distance of 20 kms., from village Kunj. The brother of deceased Nandram accompanied the injured to Bhadra Hospital and on the evidence of Dr. B.N. Kalla, while explaining the delay submitted that the incident took place at 11.00 a.m. on 24th May Injured Amilal was taken to the Hospital at Bhadra at that very time which is at a distance of 20 kms., from village Kunj. The brother of deceased Nandram accompanied the injured to Bhadra Hospital and on the evidence of Dr. Subhash Rajput, deceased was taken to Hissar Hospital and Amilal deceased expired in the Hissar Hospital, at 11 a.m. on 25th, Amruram (PW 1) father of the deceased stayed back in village Kunj to look after the `Barat' and at 10 a.m. on 25th, he started for Bhadra. He reached there at about 12 noon. He straight way went to the Hospital and there he was informed that the condition of Amilal was serious, therefore, he has been taken to Hissar Hospital. In Hospital, he was also told that though they have informed the police about the incident but no formal FIR has been registered, therefore, he thought it proper to lodge the FIR before he proceeds to Hissar. He went to police station Bhadra and lodged the report (Ex.P.1) at 3 p.m. on 25.5.83 and then went to Hissar Hospital and there he was informed that Amilal expired. On these facts, Mr. Kalla learned counsel for the complainant submitted that when the informant and his son had no opportunity prior 3 p.m. as they were more serious about looking after the deceased then completing the formality of the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR uptil 3 p.m. on 25.5.83, is reasonable. For that, he relied on the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Rajasthan, (1985 Cr. LR (Raj.) 10) , wherein, the issue was considered in respect of delay in lodging the FIR. In that case, the occurrence was alleged to have taken place at about 6 a.m. on April 15, 1974. The FIR (Ex P.7) was lodged at 11 p.m., on the same day at police station. Since the deceased had not died on the spot and was still alive, PW 15 Bansilal thought it proper first to take him for treatment. It was held that in those circumstances, it was quite natural on his part. Thus, there was no delay in lodging the FIR and even if it was, it stood satisfactorily explained. Since the deceased had not died on the spot and was still alive, PW 15 Bansilal thought it proper first to take him for treatment. It was held that in those circumstances, it was quite natural on his part. Thus, there was no delay in lodging the FIR and even if it was, it stood satisfactorily explained. Considering the facts of this case stated above, which are not in dispute, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be unreasonable. 10. Now, the next question, which is to be considered is whether the injuries caused on the person of the deceased can be assigned to the accused persons. 11. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this murder case. His main emphasis was on the fact that all the eye-witnesses are co-relation of the deceased and therefore, they are interested witnesses Amruram (PW 1) is father of the deceased. Laxmi Narayan and Rawatram are brothers of Amruram in the family and no independent witness is produced by the prosecution residing in the vicinity of the site, where the incident took place. He submitted that it is strange that the son of Amruram was unconscious and he instead of going along with him for his treatment remained in the village. The name of Laxmi Narain (PW 12) was not mentioned in the FIR but he made his statement in the court and thereby introduced a false witness to support the prosecution case. Mr. Garg also submitted that as per prosecution story Amilal deceased was first taken to his house from the place of incident and then to Bhadra Hospital and it is also admitted that he was lying there in a pool of blood at the site but no trial of blood was found from the place of occurrence to the house of Amilal. Amruram, Rawataram as well as Laxmi Narain stated that Harphool was armed with gandasi, he gave one gandasi blow and thereafter repeated the gandasi blows but on post-mortem, only two injuries caused by sharp edged weapon are found. He also pointed out that while Amru Ram went to lodge the FIR at about 3 pm. Amruram, Rawataram as well as Laxmi Narain stated that Harphool was armed with gandasi, he gave one gandasi blow and thereafter repeated the gandasi blows but on post-mortem, only two injuries caused by sharp edged weapon are found. He also pointed out that while Amru Ram went to lodge the FIR at about 3 pm. on 25th May, 1985 he was told that he came today, they had already information about the murder of his son and inspite of that the report was registered for the offence under Sec. 307. Thus, these interested witnesses are not of sterling worth the conviction was not justified. So far as the motive is concerned, there was no serious enmity between the complainant and Harphool, so that he should be bent upon to kill Amilal. Even as per the complainant's case, there was some exchange of hot words between Harphool and the deceased but that cannot be the reason for murder of Amilal. Not only that, the sterio-type statement given by these three eye witnesses is not possible, therefore, they should not be believed or relied upon for conviction. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Doongarsing also supported the arguments advanced by Mr. Garg Mr. Doongar Singh pointed out that in cross examination, Amruram stated that he was weeping in the Bus while he was going from Bhadra to Hissar as his son had died. Thus, he had the knowledge about the death of his son even though the FIR was lodged under Sec 307. He also submitted that if Nandram or Amruram was knowing the names of the assailants,they could have definitely told the same to the doctor at Bhadra Hospital. They mentioned that the injuries were sustained in quarrel. He also submitted that the incident took place on 24.5.83, while the accused appellants were arrested on 7-6-83 inspite of the fact that they were available in village till their arrest. If the police had the genuine belief, the accused could have been arrested on 26th, while the S.H.O. went to the spot. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Kalla, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the eye-witnesses viz. Amruram, Rawataram and Laxmi Narain are of sterling worth and are consistent in their statements. The weapon, which was not blood-stained, if not sent to the FSL does not affect adversely the prosecution case. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Kalla, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the eye-witnesses viz. Amruram, Rawataram and Laxmi Narain are of sterling worth and are consistent in their statements. The weapon, which was not blood-stained, if not sent to the FSL does not affect adversely the prosecution case. As per the Doctor's report, injuries No. 1, 2 and 6 were sufficient to cause death and they are antemortem in nature, is enough to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that close relations of the deceased is not enough to disbelieve the witnesses. He relied on the cases reported in Balbir Kaur & others v. State of Punjab (1976 Cr. LR (SC) 417) , Gopal singh v. State of U.P. (1978 Cr. LR (SC) 297), State of Haryana v. Sher Singh ( AIR 1981 SC 1021 ) and Ram Niwas & another v. State of Rajasthan, (1975 WLN (UC) 481) . 13. In Balbir Kaur's case (supra), their Lordships held that relatives, who are eye witnesses are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon. 14. In Gopal Singh's case (supra), their Lordships again considered the question of interested witnesses and observed in part 11 as under:- `True, they were interested witnesses, related to the deceased. Far from undermining the circumstances of the case, it guarantees the truth of their testimony. Being relations, they would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant or substitute him in place of the real culprit." 15. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (AIR 1981 SC 1890) their Lordships have made the distinction between interested witness and related witness and observed in para 5A that `related witness' is not equivalent to interested witness. A witness may be called interested only when he or she drives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree of a civil case or in seeing an accused-person punished. A witness, who is natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be `interested'. 16. In Ramnivas's case (supra), this Court observed that while the eye-witness inspires confidence, whether he is cousin or brother of the deceased. Weapon of offence not found stained with blood, does not affect the prosecution case. 17. 16. In Ramnivas's case (supra), this Court observed that while the eye-witness inspires confidence, whether he is cousin or brother of the deceased. Weapon of offence not found stained with blood, does not affect the prosecution case. 17. In the light of these decisions, now, it is to be seen whether the testimony of eye-witnesses PW 1 Amruram, PW 2 Rawataram and PW 12 Laxmi Narain, who are close relatives of the deceased, can be discarded. The mere relation is not enough to discard the testimony. The only thing, which is to be kept in mind is to scrutinised the statement of co-relations with more care. If we look into the statement of Amruram (PW 1), father of the deceased who claimed that while Amilal was attacked by the accused-persons. On hearing his cry, he went towards the place of incident and saw that Harphool armed with a Gandasi and Ram Kumar, Ram Ratan. Maniram and Bhagirath were aimed with lathies. First Harphool inflicted gandasi blow on the head of the deceased. He fell down. Then the other four accused-persons inflicted lathi blows. In cross-examination, it was asked from him how many gandasi blows were inflicted by Harpool, whether 20, 50, 5 or 10. His reply was that he did not know. He further stated that when he saw this, he also raised cries and hearing his cries, Krishna, Bhagirath and Rawataram came. Krishna and Bhagirath are not examined. After the incident, Amilal was taken to his house. No blood was found from the place of incident to the place of his house. He stated that after the incident deceased was taken to Bhadra Hospital. There, he was treated by Dr. Subhash Rajput (PW 10). He did not stiched the wounds. Similarly, in the statement of doctor, who treated the deceased in Hissar Hospital, there is no mention of stiching the wounds which were caused by the sharp edged weapon while at the same time in the post-mortem report Dr. Roshanlal stated that while bandage was removed, he found wound 1 and 2 stiched meaning thereby, that some facts are suppressed by the prosecution. Who stiched the wounds, is not known. It is possible that the deceased injured somewhere else, got treated brought to home and then taken to Bhadra Hospital. Rawataram has repeated the same statement that while Amilal raised the cries, Amruram went. Who stiched the wounds, is not known. It is possible that the deceased injured somewhere else, got treated brought to home and then taken to Bhadra Hospital. Rawataram has repeated the same statement that while Amilal raised the cries, Amruram went. Amruram also raised the cries & hearing the cries, he went towards the site along with Krishna & Bhagirath and saw Harphool armed with gandasi & other accused Ramkumar, Maniram, Ramratan and Bhagirath armed with lathies. First Harphool gave the gandasi below. Amilal fell down and he repeated the gandasi blow and when they challenged, the accused-appellants ran away. So is the case of Laxmi Narain who is the brother of Amruram in family. He stated that when he heard the cries `Martehai', `Marte hai' `Bachao', `Bachao', he went towards the spot and saw Amilal lying on the ground. Harphool was armed with gandasi and Ramkumar, Ramratan, Maniram and Bhagirath were aimed with lathies. Harphool inflicted gandasi blow on the head of Amilal and other accused persons inflicted lathi blows. He saw Amruram, Rawataram, Bhagirath & Krishna coming from the front side and when they challenged, the accused appellants ran away. 18. The site-plan (Ex. P 2) reveals that the incident took place at place `A' in the street near the Nohra of Lunaram and the house of Harlal, where the Barat stayed. It is also mentioned that the accused-persons were hidden in the Nohra of Lunaram and the moment Amilal came towards the house of Harlal they stopped and attacked him. Neither of the witness says that he has seen the scene when Amilal was coming from the house of Harlal, stopped by these accused-persons. All the eye-witnesses stated that they heard the cries of Amruram and Amilal that attracted their attention, then, they came to the place. It was about 11 p.m. in the night and when they have not seen the scene while Amilal was stopped, how their claim can be accepted that all the three eye-witnesses had seen the first gandasi blow inflicted on Amilal by Harphool accused. Seeing the site plan, it is difficult to believe the prosecution case that they could see the first gandasi blow given by Harpool on the head Amilal, when they came to the site only after hearing the cries. That creates a great doubt in the story of prosecution. Seeing the site plan, it is difficult to believe the prosecution case that they could see the first gandasi blow given by Harpool on the head Amilal, when they came to the site only after hearing the cries. That creates a great doubt in the story of prosecution. Not only that Amruram also stated that when he raised the hue and cry; Kishna, Bhagirath and Rawataram came but he has mentioned the name of Laxmi Narain, who has been later introduced as an eye-witness. It raises further doubt in the prosecution story. 19. As per the statement, of Laxminarain, the deceased Amilal came to him at about 7 p.m. on the day of marriage and told him that the accused-appellants have abused him and tried to attack, then, he told the deceased that let the marriage be over, we will see then tomorrow. Can it be believed that they had so much enmity that they wanted to kill him at the earliest and waited till 11 pm. to kill him. That further creates doubt in the prosecution story. Further, if we look into the statement of Amruram (PW 1), he stated that went he heard the cries `Mare re Mare re', he went towards the site and saw Harphool armed with gandasi and other four accused-persons viz. Ramkumar, Maniram, Ramratan and Bhagirath armed with lathies. Harphool inflicted Gandasi blow and other four accused-persons inflicted lathi blows. He further stated that on his cries, Rawtaram, Kishna and Bhagirath came on the scene. He did not mention the name of Laxmi Narain. Laxmi Narain has claimed to be an eye-witness. Kishan and Bhagirath were not examined. Rawtaram and Laxmi Narain, brothers of Amru in the family introduced as eye-witnesses. But they also claimed that they have seen the first gandasi blow inflicted by the accused Harphool. The pertinent question is to be noted that while it is stated that firstly, Amruram heard the cries of Amilal deceased thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence. On his cries. Rawtaram. Kishan and Bhagirath also came to the scene. How it is possible that all of them have seen the entire incident or injuries inflicted by each accused-person. Does it mean, that all the accused-persons watching that let Rawtaram, Kishan, Bhagirath and Laxmi Narain came at the scene and thereafter they infected the injuries, so they could witness the scene. Rawtaram. Kishan and Bhagirath also came to the scene. How it is possible that all of them have seen the entire incident or injuries inflicted by each accused-person. Does it mean, that all the accused-persons watching that let Rawtaram, Kishan, Bhagirath and Laxmi Narain came at the scene and thereafter they infected the injuries, so they could witness the scene. In our opinion, both the things are not possible at a time i.e. if they were not near the place of incident and came after hearing the cries of Amilal then in this process, it may take sometime and they could have seen the occurrence thereafter. But here, they could not see at least first and second blows of gandasi inflicted by Harphool, which could be caused at a spur of moment, especially when, the facts on record are that the house of Laxmi Narain is 62-65 steps away from the place of incident, therefore, it takes some time to reach the place after hearing the cries. From the above discussion, it reveals that as eye witnesses are close relations of the deceased, therefore, their testimony is not wholly reliable but requires corroboration. 20. It is pertinent to note that while all these eye-witnesses have seen identified the accused-appellants,that must have been known to Nandram (PW 4) brother of the deceased who along with Maniram took the deceased to Bhadra Hospital from village Kunj and from there to Hissar Hospital. He did not give the names of the assailants anywhere to any body, neither to Dr. Subhash Rajput (PW 10) nor to Dr. Roshan Lal (PW 9). 21. The facts in respect of the recovery of gandasi should also be taken into account for the prosecution, as the gandasi was not found bloodstained and nor any reason has been given, how the blood is dis-appeared from the gandasi, which is recovered at the instance of the accused. How the blood is disappeared from that gandasi, at least, that part of evidence in respect of gandasi is lacking to connect the gandasi in question with the crime. 22. The other important fact to be taken into account is that in post-mortem report seven injuries including two stiched wounds were found on the person of deceased Amilal. The incident took place at about 11 p.m. Injured was brought to his house and then to Bhadra Hospital and from there to Hissar Hospital. 22. The other important fact to be taken into account is that in post-mortem report seven injuries including two stiched wounds were found on the person of deceased Amilal. The incident took place at about 11 p.m. Injured was brought to his house and then to Bhadra Hospital and from there to Hissar Hospital. At which place and by whom, the wounds of injury Nos. 1 and 2 were stiched. Nothing is brought on record in this respect. PW 10 Dr. Subhash Rajput was specifically denied that he had stiched the wounds in question. Similarly, Dr. Kishanlal, who treated the deceased in Hissar Hospital was not stated anything about stiching the wounds of injury Nos. 1 & 2 on the person of the deceased? Further, no trial of blood is found from the place of incident to the house of the deceased from where the prosecution claims that injured was taken to his house. All these facts raise serious doubt in the prosecution story. 23. The next question for consideration is whether there is motive behind this murder or whether the accused-appellants had any motive to kill Amilal. The only statement, which has came on record is that about 11/2 year back, there was some exchange of abuses and scuffle between the accused Harphool and the deceased Amilal. Thereafter, no incident took place. Can that be sufficient base for motive, to kill the deceased. 24. In Shersingh's case (supra), their Lordships observed in para 6 that the prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case in as much as, the motive is known only to the preparator of the crime and may not be known to others. If the motive is proved by the prosecution, the Court has to consider it. 25. Firstly, the motive is not always necessary to be proved in case of murder. In fact, it is a double edged weapon, sometime when the relations are strained it may result in death of either of the party or some time an innocent person can also be falsely implicated but again that also depends on the degree of enmity between the parties. In fact, it is a double edged weapon, sometime when the relations are strained it may result in death of either of the party or some time an innocent person can also be falsely implicated but again that also depends on the degree of enmity between the parties. Here, the only fact brought on record is that there was some exchange of abuses and scuffle among Harphool and the deceased, in our opinion, that cannot be a reason or motive behind the murder of the deceased.To sum up, the facts on record shows that the death of Amilal is homicidal. He was taken from village Kunj to Bhadra Hospital and from there to Hissar Hospital and there he expired. These are the facts borne out from the official record and therefore, cannot be doubted. The doubt remains only in respect of the fact whether accused-appellant have inflicted the injuries as alleged by the prosecution. When the eye-witnesses are only close relatives and the interested witnesses, who are not wholly reliable witnesses, the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Specially when, the incident took place near the houses of the independent witnesses, no independent witness was brought on record rather, it is said that nobody came out from their houses, while the incident took place. It is again unbelievable. Again from the place of incident to the house of the deceased, where he is said to be brought after the incident, no trial of blood is found, while the prosecution case is that after the incident, injured was unconscious and was lying in a pool of blood. Therefore, there is doubt whether the incident has taken place at the site and in the manner as claimed by the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove that Amilal must have been killed by these assailants. In our opinion the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused.In the result, the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar is set aside. The accused-appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 26. Per Hon'ble R.S. Verma, J. - I have perused the judgment prepared by my learned brother and I agree with the conclusion arrived at by him. The accused-appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 26. Per Hon'ble R.S. Verma, J. - I have perused the judgment prepared by my learned brother and I agree with the conclusion arrived at by him. However, I am recording my reasons separately for arriving at the said conclusion. Firstly, I am of the view that the FIR in this case has been recorded with good deal of delay and the explanation for the delay is not satisfactory at all. The incident is said to have taken place at 11 p.m. on 24-5-83. The FIR was lodged on 25-5-83 at 3 p.m. even though injured Amru Ram alongwith P.W. 4 Nand Ram and Bhagirath had reached Bhadra Government hospital on 25-5-83 at 5 a.m. Nandram or Bhagirath could have very well lodged the report at P.S., Bhadra, which is at a small distance from Police Station. The explanation for not lodging such a report is that Nandram and Bhagirath had asked the doctor to report the matter to the police and the doctor informed them that he had lodged such a report. The concerned doctor PW 10 Subhas Rajput has not corroborated this story at all. This is true that Dr. Subhash Rajput claims to have sent intimation Ex. P. 10 to SHO, P.S. Bhadra. But it is not at all a report of the incident. Ex. P. 10 appears to have been received at P.S. Bhadra at 8.45 a.m. vide Roznamcha Report Ex. P. 11 upon which letter Ex. P. 12 appears to have been written to Dr. Rajput. According to PW 5 Soorajmal ASI he reached Govt. Hospital Bhadra after injured Amilal had been shifted to Hissar. Ex. P. 12 shows that he was referred to Govt. Hospital at Hissar at 9,25 a.m. Thus, almost 4 hours and 25 minutes were available to Nandram and Bhagirath to lodge a proper FIR but this was not done. 27. Formal FIR Ex. P. 1 was recorded at the instance of PW 1 Amruram father of the injured. Ex. P. 1 was lodged on 25-5-83 at 3 p.m. and the reason for this delay recited in the FIR is that Amru Ram had stayed back at village Kunji to bid farewell to the marriage party and he left for Bhadra after the marriage party had left Kunji. Ex. P. 1 was lodged on 25-5-83 at 3 p.m. and the reason for this delay recited in the FIR is that Amru Ram had stayed back at village Kunji to bid farewell to the marriage party and he left for Bhadra after the marriage party had left Kunji. This explanation is falsified by sworn testimony of PW 1 Amru Ram, himself when he admit that he had left for Bhadra before the departure of the Bharat from village Kunji. According to PW 1 Amru Ram he left Kunji at 10.30 a.m. & first went to Govt. Hospital at Bhadra, where nurse and compounder informed him that Amilal had been shifted to Hissar. He claims to have gone to P.S Bhadra thereafter to lodge the report. He has deposed that from Bhadra, he want to Hissar alongwith police from Bhadra. According to him the `Thanedar' asked him why he had come that day, when murder had taken place a day ago. He has elaborated this by saying. " rqEgkjs yM+ds ds dRy dh bfRryk rks gesa fey xbZ gS&fjiksVZ esjh ntZ djkus ij eq>s ;g dg fn;k fd rqEgkjs yM+ds ds dRy dh bfRryk gesa dy fey xbZ FkhA " If it was so, it is surprising how the police recorded the FIR for offence u/s 307, IPC. According to Dr. Krishnalal, he admitted Amilal at Hissar hospital on 25-5-83 at about 11.15 a.m. He gave some sort of treatment to Amilal but Amilal breathed his last after about half an hour. This goes to show that the FIR Ex. P 1 was recorded in a manner as to give an impression that Amilal was still alive, when in fact he had actually died much earlier. This to say the least, is baffling. 28. The FIR in this case is quite elaborate and is said to have been lodged at instance of Amruram, who claims to be an eye-witness. The FIR does not name Laxminarain as an eye-witness of the occurrence, yet at the trial Laxminarain has been examined as an eye-witness. He is an uncle of the deceased and his statement was not recorded on 25-5-83 when Soorajmal visited village Kunji. Non-mention of his name in the FIR makes his presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful. The other two alleged witnesses of the incident named in FIR are Bhagirath and Krishna but they have not been examined. He is an uncle of the deceased and his statement was not recorded on 25-5-83 when Soorajmal visited village Kunji. Non-mention of his name in the FIR makes his presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful. The other two alleged witnesses of the incident named in FIR are Bhagirath and Krishna but they have not been examined. Thus, the prosecution case would principally test upon the evidence of PW 1 Amruram and PW 2 Raota. Amru Ram has deposed that at about 11 p.m. he was going from his house. All of a sudden, he heard a cry upon which he rushed towards his son Amilal. He saw Harphool with a gandasi and other appellants armed with lathis. Harphool gave a gandasi blow to Amilal upon which he fell to the ground. Thereafter, all other appellants started beating him with lathis. At this, the witness raised an alarm upon which Raota. Bhagirath and Krishna came rushing and all the appellants ran away. He has admitted that in the FIR he had not stated that Harphool had given a gandasi blow and Amilal had fallen on the ground as a result. Thus, on this material aspect, he has made an improvement. Regarding the other appellants, he has made an omnibus statement that all of them gave in discriminate beating. If this witness has to be believed. Raota, Bhagirath and Krishna came after Harphool had given gandasi blow to Amilal. According to `Raota Ram, a Amilal was going towards house of Harlal, where `baraat' was staying. Amilal was being followed by Amru and Amru was followed by this witness, Bhagirath and Krishna. All of a sudden, all the five appellants came together. Harphool bad gandasi in his hand. All others had lathis. All of them surrounded Amilal. At this Amilal and Amru raised arm. This witness along with Krishna and Bhagirath rushed towards Amilal and Amru. Harphool all of a sudden gave a gandasi blow to Amilal. Thereafter, all the appellants gave beating to him by lathis. Now, this version is materially different from the version given by Amru. If what Amru says is true, this witness must have reached the spot only after Amilal had fallen after receiving a gandasi blow from Harphool and he could not have seen Harphool giving a gandasi blow to Amilal. Thereafter, all the appellants gave beating to him by lathis. Now, this version is materially different from the version given by Amru. If what Amru says is true, this witness must have reached the spot only after Amilal had fallen after receiving a gandasi blow from Harphool and he could not have seen Harphool giving a gandasi blow to Amilal. Thus, the two statements are discrepant and unreliable Though Soorajmal reached village Kunji on 25-5-1983 itself, he did not record the statement of the witness. The versions given by the aforesaid witnesses are so discrepant and inconsistent that it is difficult to believe any one of them. 29. According to Raota Ram, Harphool gave many gandasi blows to Amilal. He has stated " gjQwy ,d xaMklh ekjus ds ckn Hkh vkSj xaMklh ekjrk jgk FkkA " Now, the medical evidence does not show that the deceased had received a large number of gandasi blows as claimed by this witness. According to Amru Ram only one gandasi blow given but Dr. Roshanlal deposes about two gandasi blows on the person of the deceased. Thus, the statements of both these alleged eyewitnesses are not corroborated by medical evidence so far as injuries caused by gandasi are concerned. 30. Taking an overall view of the evidence of the prosecution, it has not been established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that it were the present appellants, who had made the fatal assault on the deceased. The testimony of Laxminarain cannot be relied upon as his name was not disclosed in the FIR Statements of Raota Ram and Amru Ram are discrepant. FIR in the case was lodged after considerable delay. Two alleged eye-witnesses viz. Bhagirath and Krishan have not been examined. The result is that all the three appeals deserve to be accepted. 31. By the Court. - We accept all the three appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned trial court and set aside the conviction and sentences passed upon them and acquit them of all the charges viz. Harphool for offences u/ss. 148, 302/149 IPC and Maniram, Bhagirath, Ram Ratan and Ramkumar of offences u/ss. 147 and 302/149, IPC. All the appellants shall be released immediately, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******