JUDGMENT 1. - The 15 appellants before us have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 148 Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence Under Section 302/149 r.w. 149 IPC, and to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Against this conviction and sentence made by the Sessions Judge, Sundi in Sessions Case No. 91/89 decided on 16th May, 1990, the present appeals have been preferred. It is a triple murder case. The decased in the case are Sobhag, Nand Kishore and Ram, Pratap, who were real brothers and sons of P.W. 1 Roop Lal. 2. The incident, out of which the case arises occurred in the early hours of 16.4.1989 in between the villages Kalmiya and Jar-Khoda which fall under the Police Station Dei in District Bundi. One Behari went to Police Station Dei with the information about the incident and he reported that Sobhag, Ram Pratap and Nand Kishore were lying unconscious on the road between Kalmiya and Jarkhoda with several injuries and that he did not know who were the persons who had given the beating and who gave blows on whom. This information was recorded in the rojnamcha and the S.H.O. Chawand Singh alongwith other police personnel proceeded towards the place of incident. 3. At the site, Roop Lal gave a written report, which has been treated as the first information report and according to the version of Roop Lal, his three sons Sobhag, Ram Pratap and Nand Kishore had gone to village Jarkhoda to worship at the Ayot Ji Ka Chabutra as the wife of Sobhag was unwell. When they were returning to village Kalmiya at about 3.00 in the night in the way they met the 15 accused persons who stopped them and inflicted injuries by Kulhadies, Gandasies and Lathies with the result that Sobhag died at the spot and Ram Pratap and Nand Kishore were lying unconscious and they were taken in a bus to the Dei hospital alongwith police constable. Thereafter he narrated that Miya Ram and Raja Ram Kulbedies, Nehnu and Laxmi Narain had Gandasies and the handle of the Kulhadi was inserted in the anus of Sobhag which resulted in profused bleeding and the hands and feat of all the three were broken. Thereafter he narrated that Miya Ram and Raja Ram Kulbedies, Nehnu and Laxmi Narain had Gandasies and the handle of the Kulhadi was inserted in the anus of Sobhag which resulted in profused bleeding and the hands and feat of all the three were broken. For the other accused it was stated that they had given blows by lathies. 4. For his presence at the place of occurrence, Roop Lal stated that when his children did not return to the village inspite of it being very late, he want towards Jarkhoda with others to find but about them and after going some distance, from the village, they saw the accused persons inflicting injuries. The accused wanted to take Ram Pratap to throw him into the wall but whom they saw that others had arrived at the scene, they left him and ran away. 5. According to the police diary, the time of receiving the information Ex.P.29A was 7.45 a.m. and Ex.P.1 written report, was submitted to the police at the site at 2.30 p.m. 6. Sobhag was already dead, Nand Kishore died on the same day while Ram Pratap died after three days. The post mortem report of the three persons may be looked into before proceeding further. As per the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, the following injuries were found on the deceased persons: Nand Kishore: 1 Abrasion 1 "x 1/2" at Medial aspect of Rt. Knee joint. 2. Abrasion 3" x 1/4" at Medial aspect of lower half of Rt. leg. 3. Stiched wound 11/2" long at Lt. parental region 4" above Lt. ear. Ram Pratap: 1. Incised wound 3 x 3 x 1 cm. on anterior surface of upper 1/4th of right leg horizontally situated. 2. Incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm. on antarior surface of middle to ⅔ of right leg. 3. Incised wound 2 x 11/2 x 1 cm. on anterior surface of lower ⅓rd of right leg. 4. Swelling with bruise 6 x 3 cm. on anterior surface of middle of the left leg. 5. Swelling 3 x 2 cm. on anterior surface of upper 1/4th of left leg. 6. Incised wound 6 x 2 x 1 cm. on posterior surface of left elbow joint. 7. Bruise with swelling with fracture irregular shape and six on letro middle surface of middle of right arm. 8. on anterior surface of middle of the left leg. 5. Swelling 3 x 2 cm. on anterior surface of upper 1/4th of left leg. 6. Incised wound 6 x 2 x 1 cm. on posterior surface of left elbow joint. 7. Bruise with swelling with fracture irregular shape and six on letro middle surface of middle of right arm. 8. Swelling irregular shape and size on occipital region of head. Sobhag: 1. Bruise 10" x 21/2" on the post arise side of left back of the chest vertically, dark red blue ink colour. 2. Bruise 5" x 21/2 on the middle part of left side, of back oblique in direction and tress the vertical direction of bruise No. 1. It was dark red blue in colour. 3. Diffused swelling on the left elbow region. 4. Diffused swelling on the left hand. 5. Lacarated wound 1/2 x 1/2 x 1 cm. on the poetarior side of hand. Dark red colour blood came out from the wound and clotted blood present around the wound. 6. Fracture of both bones on upper ⅓rd part of left forearm. 7. Diffused swelling on upper third part of left leg. 8. Lecarated wound 31/2 x 21/2 x bone deep on upper third part of left leg. Th fracture part of tibial bone come out from this wound. Massive blood come out when palpated and blood stain present on the leg. 9. Fracture of both bone at its upper third part in left leg. 10. Diffuse swelling also present over the left pballa. 11. Diffuse swelling on the right forearm. 12. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 x 1/4cm. (skin) on the middle part of Rt. leg. 13. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. (skin) on the lower part of Rt. leg. 14. Abrasion 3 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm. on the lateral side of Rt. knee. 7. Besides these external injuries, the following internal injuries were also found:- Internal examination of bones: 1. There was multiple fracture of left patella and compound fracture of both tibia and fibula. The fracture and of bone come out from cut piercing the muscle, fascie and skin, and visiable out side The muscle fibre torn along the fracture and clotted dark red blood present. 2. There is multiple fracture bone of Radius and ulna at its left side. The fracture and of bone come out from cut piercing the muscle, fascie and skin, and visiable out side The muscle fibre torn along the fracture and clotted dark red blood present. 2. There is multiple fracture bone of Radius and ulna at its left side. The both bone pieces about 8 in number and divided in forearm in small transverso fracture. Also there is fracture of wrist joint and metacarpal 3, 4, 5. The muscles are torn and fully blood. 3. There is also both bone fracture on Rt. side. Muscles trauma present and offused blood present. 8. The Investigating Officer did the usual investigation of preparing site plan, un-collecting blood stained earth and control soiler collecting the blood stained goods of the deceased. B. other material to show that there was enmity between the parties. After the arrest of the accused and on basis of information given by them blood stained kulhadies were recovered from Miya Ram and Raja Ram, blood stained Gandasies were recovered from Nehnu and Laxmi Narain. They were sealed. From other accused, lathies were recovered. All these were sent to the FSL at Jaipur and according to the report of the FSL there was human blood on all the four sharp edged weapons but the group could not be determined as the blood was disintegrated. 9. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses which include the police officers and the doctors. The eye witnesses, according to the prosecution are PW 1 Roop Lal, and PW 2 Morpal and PW 3 Ram Sahai. Before coming to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the complainant, we may look into the testimony of these eye-witnesses. PW 1 Roop Lal is the father of all the three deceased persons and resident of village Kalmiya. According to him on 16th April, 1989, his three sons had gone to village Jarkhoda for worshipping Ayut ji of barbers as the wife of Sobhag was unwell. As the three sons did not return till late night, Roop Lal went to Morpal and Ram Sahai and the three of them started in search of these three persons. While they were on the road to Jarkhada they saw the 15 accused persons sitting on the road and than he saw these persons inflicting blows to his three sons. As the three sons did not return till late night, Roop Lal went to Morpal and Ram Sahai and the three of them started in search of these three persons. While they were on the road to Jarkhada they saw the 15 accused persons sitting on the road and than he saw these persons inflicting blows to his three sons. He has even specified that Sobhag was beaten by Miya Ram, Mohnu, and Satya Narain and Laxman. He has given the places where the blows of each landed. Than Miya Ram inserted the handle of the Kulhadi in the Anus of Sobhag which resulted in profuse bleeding. As far as Ram Pratap is concerned, the persons who gave beating were Raja Ram, Laxmi Narain, Prahlad, Badri, Diya Ram and Neem Lal. Laxmi Narain gave a Gandasi blow on his right leg due to which he fell down and then the others gave lathi blows then Miya Ram said that Ram Pratap should be thrown in the well and seven persons who were beating him lifted Ram Pratap but on hearing the shouts of Roop Lal, they left him on the road. For Nand Kishore, according to PW 1, Roop Lal, the persons who inflicted blows were Miya Ram, Gopi, Ram Prakash, Ram Karan and Bhojya. Miya Ram gave lathi blows. According to PW 1, Roop Lal, only the three persons were the witness to the occurrence then he sent Behari to the Police Station to give information and then the Station House Officer came to the site than a report was given to him. This report was written out by Badri at the dictation of Roop Lal. 10. As for the previous enmity, Roop Lal stated that six months prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the two parties on destroying the crop of wheat and report about this was also lodged by Sobhag. In his cross-examination, further grounds of enmity have come out. Bhura is the uncle of Roop Lal and he has said to have taken Hemraj, cousin of Roop Lal in adoption and Badri was a candidate in election against Roop Lal and the accused persons had assisted Badri in this election. Roop Lal has denied the enmity on these grounds but has admitted the facts. Bhura is the uncle of Roop Lal and he has said to have taken Hemraj, cousin of Roop Lal in adoption and Badri was a candidate in election against Roop Lal and the accused persons had assisted Badri in this election. Roop Lal has denied the enmity on these grounds but has admitted the facts. In Ex.P.1, he had not given the details of the blows inflicted by each accused on each deceased and he could not gave any explanation for this commission. The inserting of handle in the anus of Sobhag was mentioned in the first information report Ex.P. 1 but not in the police statement Ex. D-3. 11. The next is PW 2 Morpal. He has supported the statement of PW 1 Roop Lal and has given the names of the persons who gave blows to each of the deceased but he restrained himself and said that he could not see which accused inflicted injuries on which parts of the body of the deceased. This witness Morpal, is the real brother of PW 3 Ram Sahai and also PW 12 Bihari, who went to the Police Station to give information about the incident. Statement of PW 3 Ram Sahai is also on the same line as Morpal and the main injuries narrated by him are that Miya Ram gave a kulhadi blow to Sobhag and Satya Narain and Laxman gave lathi blows on him. Then Miya Ram inserted the handle of the Kulhadi in the anus of Sobhag. Ram Pratap who beaten by Roop Ram (kulhadi), Laxmi Narain (gandari) and Mangya, Prahlad, Badri, Daya Ram and Neem Lal (lathies). When they wanted to throw Ram Pratap in a well but on hearing the shouts of Roop Lal, he was left in the field. Nand Kishore was beaten by Ram Karan, Gopi, Bhojya and Chandra Prakash by lathies, and then Miya Ram, went to assist these persons, gave a Kulhadi blow on the head of Nand Kishore. 12. The learned Sessions Judge believed the three eye-witnesses holding that the witnesses in this case were truthful witnesses. He did not draw adverse inference for not examining the witness Badri who wrote the first information report. There was no injury in the anus of Sobhag according to the post mortem report but the learned Sessions Judge observed that the doctor may not have examined him thoroughly. The first, information report Ex. He did not draw adverse inference for not examining the witness Badri who wrote the first information report. There was no injury in the anus of Sobhag according to the post mortem report but the learned Sessions Judge observed that the doctor may not have examined him thoroughly. The first, information report Ex. P.1 was also taken to be the first information report and has been considered as substantive piece of evidence. On these findings, the accused persons were held guilty and convicted as stated above. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellants have contended that the case against the accused appellants cannot be held to be proved as the witnesses examined in the case cannot be believed. It is stated that there is no reliable witness. Their presence at the site is bye-chance, and being interested and related witnesses their testimony should be scrutinised thoroughly. Their conduct is said to be unnatural and their testimony also said to be full of contradictions. Another contention is that the material evidence does not corroborate the occurrence as narrated by these witnesses. Sobhag did not have any injury by sharp weapon while Nand Kishore had one incised wound on the head and Ram Pratap had four incised wounds but all on the legs and arms. There was no injury at all on the anus of Sobhag which according to the learned Counsel for the appellants show that the prosecution story is culpabaly false. It is contended that then 15 persons are given blows to three persons and the time of the occurrence was about 3.00 a.m. and the night was dark then the possibility that the witnesses would see each blow was remote and it was near in possible to tall who gave the blows to each deceased. Sobhag had died at the place but Ram Pratap was alive and he was able to speak. He was shouting and he was given matter as stated by PW 18 Bala, who had gone to the site after the occurrence PW 8 Dr. Lal, who examined the injuries of Ram Pratap had stated that when Ram Pratap was brought to the hospital he was conscious. In such a situation, his statement could have been recorded about the manner in which the incident occurred and who were the persons who had inflicted injuries to the three persons. Lal, who examined the injuries of Ram Pratap had stated that when Ram Pratap was brought to the hospital he was conscious. In such a situation, his statement could have been recorded about the manner in which the incident occurred and who were the persons who had inflicted injuries to the three persons. The testimony in the nature of dying declaration could have been helpful to the prosecution but for no reasons, the statement of Ram Pratap was not recorded. 14. Mr. Mehrish, appearing on behalf of the six appellants has contended that the occurrence took place at an odd hour at a place where in the normal circumstances, there could be no witness. The witnesses, who would have been normally present at that time, they have also not been examined. Referring to the site plan, it is pointed out that there was blood in the sand on two places but there was no blood at the third place and the shoes of one of the deceased were also found at the place of occurrence. It could be possible that one of the deceased had brought away from the scene after the occurrence. Reference has been made to the enmity between the parties on behalf of Badri and Roopa being rival candidates in Panchayat Election and all the accused persons had supported Badri. It is contended that the evidence before the court does not contain that part where the accused made an attempt to throw Ram Pratap in the well. The absence of the names of the accused in the report lodged by PW 12 Bihari is also said to be very important as it does not contain the names of the accused hence, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there was no intimation/knowledge as to who had committed the crime but it was later on, these accused persons were implicated because of the enmity. 15. Learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have contended that Bihari was sent to inform and call the police as soon as he reached the site and there was no time to give the details to him and as he was not an eye- witness he could not have given the details in the report. 15. Learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have contended that Bihari was sent to inform and call the police as soon as he reached the site and there was no time to give the details to him and as he was not an eye- witness he could not have given the details in the report. It is contended that the case of the prosecution will not become false merely because he there was blood on two places as Nand Kishore have only one incised wound it may be possible that his blood did not fall on the ground. Reference has been made to Ex.P.74 which is a report by Sobhag in which he has written that there was apprehension of breach of peace and proceedings under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. were taken against the accused. The other evidence relied upon the letters Ex.P.12 and P.13 written by Miya Ram in which he has written that the deceased should be thought a lesson. Besides this, reliance has been placed on the recovery of the weapons at the instance of the accused and the finding of human blood on two gandasies and two kulhadies. 16. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides and we may say that we have to decide whether the evidence in the case inspires confidence so as to held that all the accused persons are the persons responsible for causing death of all the three deceased persons. It has to be seen whether the prosecution story has ring of truth in it and while doing so minor in consistencies or falsehood can be overlooked but if the same are glaring and probably introduced than the witnesses cannot be accepted as true witnesses. 17. The enmity between the two parties can be said to be established even though the witnesses have tried to avoid the questions about it. It is an admitted position that Badri and Roop Lal fought election against each other and Badri was supported by accused party. Then there was dispute about Hem Raj going in adoption to Bhura. Both parties are causing and there were other cases pending between them. It is an admitted position that Badri and Roop Lal fought election against each other and Badri was supported by accused party. Then there was dispute about Hem Raj going in adoption to Bhura. Both parties are causing and there were other cases pending between them. Enmity may be a cause for committing the crime but at the same time it can be said that if the accused persons were not known then it would be only necessary to implicate those who had enmity with the deceased. In this case, the silent feature is that the information given by Bihari in the police station does not contain the names of the assailants. Bihari has tried to explain that he did not know as to which accused inflicted which injury on which of the deceased hence, he did not name them in the information Ex.P. 29-A but this does not bear to be a plausible explanation. If a person has to proceed to the police station to give information and the call the police, he has to know at least as to how the occurrence has happened and if the persons who are sending him for this information normally it is the first question which would be asked is as to who were the assailants and even the complainant party would not try to find, this information if it is within their knowledge. They had nothing to gain by concealing the names of the assailants and the only inference which appears plausible is that it was not known as to who were the assailants. The incident occurred at a dark night at 3.00 a.m. at a place where no persons were likely to be present and in all probability no one saw the incident. It may be possible that the accused who had enmity with the deceased persons were the persons who inflicted the blows but then this possibility has to have some supporting evidence. The three eye-witnesses who have appeared in this case have narrated the incident by giving so many details that it becomes difficult to accept them as natural witnesses who had witnessed the incident. Their testimony is not corroborated by medical evidence. Sobhag has no injury by a sharp weapon when the witnesses say that five blows by sharp weapon were given to him. Besides this, the injury on the anus is missing. Their testimony is not corroborated by medical evidence. Sobhag has no injury by a sharp weapon when the witnesses say that five blows by sharp weapon were given to him. Besides this, the injury on the anus is missing. There is no reason to disbelieve the Doctor when he has said that there was no injury on the anus of of Sobhag. The Doctor may be considered to be negligent if the nature of injury and that too which has to be sever one cannot be attributed to more carelessness. It is highly improbable that the accused would keep watching for the deceased persons and could inflict injuries only when the father of the deceased reached the spot alongwith others. After all Kalmiya is three kilometers away from Jarkhoda and the deceased persons should not have taken 5-6 hours in covering this distance on bicycles. Roopa Ram and others could have gone at 3.00 a.m. when the three sons did not return but then at that time they must have found the three persons lying on the road rather than be able to witness the incident. 18. In Chanan Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1554 ; the case of the prosecution was disbelieved on the basis of the unnatural conduct of the sole witness as he ran away the place of occurrence without threatening by any one and he did not report the incident to the relatives of the deceased persons. In Mangi Lal and Ors. v. State of M.P. 1990 Cr. LR (SC) 311 ; it was held that it is highly dangerous to convict as many as nine persons when there are strong circumstances to show that so many of them would not have participated. The evidence of sole witness was highly doubtful in the light of the medical evidence and in the situation it was held that there was no way of separating the grain from the chaff and all the accused were acquitted. In Baldav Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 464 ; it was held that in cases of group rivalries and enmities there is general tendency to rope in as many as persons as possible as having participated in an assault. The court should therefore, scrutinise evidence carefully and then benefit may be given to the accused. In Baldav Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 464 ; it was held that in cases of group rivalries and enmities there is general tendency to rope in as many as persons as possible as having participated in an assault. The court should therefore, scrutinise evidence carefully and then benefit may be given to the accused. Where several people give blow to the victim at one and the same time it is not possible to particularise the blows and if any witness try to do so, his veracity become doubtful. 19. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Supp (2) SCC 21 , where the prosecution failed to show that the blood stains on knife were of the same group as the blood of the deceased, the prosecution case was held to be doubtful. 20. Learned Counsel for the complainant has relied upon Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. AIR 1985 SC 1678 wherein it was held that it is not uncommon for parsons whom they see a ghastly and dastardly murder being committed in their presence that they almost lose their sense of balance and remain dumbfounded until they are able to compose themselves. In this case, the sole eye-witness did not immediately disclose the names of the accused to the inmates of the family of the deceased when he went to the house, but it could not be said that there was fatal defect in the prosecution case. This sole witness in the case was acting as a guard of the deceased who was expecting serious threat to his life from the appellants. 21. In the present case we may say that the evidence produced by the prosecution does not inspite confidence. As many as 15 persons are said to be inflicted injuries to three deceased persons at about mid night on which time it is absolutely improbable to see the blow of each of the accused. First of all the very presence of the eye-witnesses, who are interested and related witnesses is doubtful and than their manner of narration is such that they want to implicate all by attributing independant blows to them. The medical evidence does not corroborate the infliction of sharp weapon injuries to deceased sofar. First of all the very presence of the eye-witnesses, who are interested and related witnesses is doubtful and than their manner of narration is such that they want to implicate all by attributing independant blows to them. The medical evidence does not corroborate the infliction of sharp weapon injuries to deceased sofar. Besides this, the specific evidence about the inserting of wooden handle of Kulhadi in the anus of Sobhag is not corroborated by medical evidence. Ram Prasad deceased was conscious while in the hospital and he could have given his statement so as to show as to who were the persons responsible for causing the death of Sobhag and two others. The further fact which creates suspicion on the whole story is the absence of names of the accused in the information given by Behari at the police station. The information given to the police, constitute about commission of a cognizable offence to be treated as first information report and it cannot be said that only when the police come to know about the names of the assailants, that they would treat the report as a first information report. In several cases, crime is found to have been committed but it is not known who committed the crime but the first information report has to be registered as soon as the police received an information about the commission of a cognizable offence and itself register a case upon it rather than to wait for further particulars. In this case, the failure of Bihari to mention the names of the accused in the report submitted by him to the Police Station cannot be said to be explained properly. He was not an eye witness so as to say that he become dumb on seeing a ghastly occurrence. If the assailants were known then every one would have been discussing their names when information is to be sent to the police. There might to be enmity between the two groups but mere on the basis of this enmity, the conviction cannot be made when the other evidence in the case is of a doubtful nature. We, therefore, hold that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 22. In the result, the appeals are accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. We, therefore, hold that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 22. In the result, the appeals are accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. They are in jail and shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeals accepted. *******