JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Both appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced for imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 each and in default of payment of fine, each one was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year for the commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both of them stood acquitted for the commission of offence under section 324 I.P.C. As such both have directed the instant appeal against their conviction for the commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated July 7, 1987 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sh. Bhuri Singh, the deceased, is the victim in the instant case whereas Dhan, Ram is his step-brother, who sustained injuries on his person. They had the same mother Smt. Kagdu but different fathers Both were living separately Said Bhuri Singh was residing in village Nichali Sarvari Chatrahan whereas Dhani Ram (PW 2) his step-brother was residing at village Saploh Incident occurred on September 29 1987 at or about 10.00 p. m. at village Nichali Sarwari Chatrahan in the verandah of the house of the deceased Smt. Kala Devi (PW 6) daughter in-law and Kupli Devi, wife (not produced) were present at the house of the deceased on the relevant date, time and place. Hari Singh as per the prosecution version, who had come to purchase oxen from the deceased was also there. 3. Both accused persons hail from different village than that of the deceased. On the material date they are alleged to have reached in the house of the deceased at about 10 00 p. m. while going to their village Loh Ropra. The deceased and Dhani Ram were known to the accused Both made themselves comfortable in the verandah of the deceased where Dhani Ram (PW 2) was also sitting. The prosecution version is that the accused persons asked the deceased as to why he did not attend the funeral of his mother who had died few months back, upon which the latter explained the reason During this conversation, the accused persons are stated to have asked the deceased to entertain them with liquor but on the latters refusal, altercation ensued. The accused are stated to have threatened them with dire consequences The accused got enraged and Molak Ram lifted a chow (small axe) and inflicted a blow thereof on the head of the deceased Bhuri Singh, smashing his head. Then accused Nota Ram took the chow from the hands of Molak Ram and gave a forceful blow of the same on the chest of said Bhuri Singh. Bhuri Singh succumbed to the said injuries and fell down on the floor of the verandah in a pool of blood. Dhani Ram and Hari Singh tried to intervene and had a scuffle with the accused When PW 2 so intervened, Nota Ram accused gave a blow of chow on his back. Resultantly, Dhani Ram (PW 2) also sustained a grievous injury on his person. Dhani Ram (PW 2), ultimately was able to snatch the lethal weapon from the accused Nota Ram. Realising the seriousness of the situation, both fled from the place of occurrence. Being baffled, a bag, a shoe of Nota Ram accused, shoes of Molak Ram and dabba were left behind. Kala Devi (PW 6) as also Kupli Devi on hearing an alarm came out in the verandah but by that time Bhuri Singh aforesaid had expired. 4. In the earlier hours of the morning Hari Singh aforesaid informed Sh Ganga Ram (PW 1), Vice-President of the Panchayat in the nearby village regarding this incident, whereupon he (PW 1) immediately rushed to the house of the deceased, apprised himself of the factual position and then left on foot for police station, Mandi and on reaching there lodged F.I.R. No. 26/87 on 30-9-1987 at 11.00 a. m. 5. The accused persons (appellants) on reaching their village, immediately got themselves medically checked up for the injury they alleged to have received during the instant incident and on being referred, they got themselves admitted in the Civil Hospital Mandi. 6. The First Information Report lodged by PW 1 impelled the police machinery to come into action. The Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared (he inquest report, got the dead body photographed and then despatched the corpse of the deceased Bhuri Singh to hospital at Kotli for postmortem. Dr. V. D. Sharma (PW 7) conducted autopsy on the person of the deceased on October 1, 1987, vide his report Ex. The Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared (he inquest report, got the dead body photographed and then despatched the corpse of the deceased Bhuri Singh to hospital at Kotli for postmortem. Dr. V. D. Sharma (PW 7) conducted autopsy on the person of the deceased on October 1, 1987, vide his report Ex. PW 7/A. Ht found one wound on the right scalp of the head of the deceased which measured 5" x 2-1/2" X 3/4" in size. The brain matter had come out from the head of the deceased. One another incised wound measuring 4" v 3" y 1-1/2" was observed on the left side of the chest due to which three ribs of the deceased had been cut. The blader of the deceased was found empty. Vicera had been taken and sent for chemical examination. In his opinion deceased died of excessive brain haemorrhage and shock and the probable duration between the death and postmortem was about 24 hours. He had examined Dhani Ram (PW 2) and both the accused- appellants on September 30, 1987, at different times. The injuries on the person of the said persons, were as under :— Dhani Ram (PW 2) 1. There was a linear injury on the left side of chest. It was on the lateral aspect and was of the dimension of 3" x 1/2" (sic) inch. 2. There was a linear injury on the left side of the forearm in front about 8 cm. away from the left elbow. Molak Ram 1. There was an incised wound on the vertex scalp it was of the dimension of 1" x 1/4" x 1/4". Nota Ram I. There was an incised wound on the left side of his back going to lumber region cutting the muscles It was about 3" x 1/2" * I". There was blood clotting at the site of the injury. The underlying internal ribs were normal. He was referred to District Hospital, Mandi. 7. Injuries found on the person of the above said three persons was opined to be simple and probable duration thereof was also found to be within 24 hours of the examination. In each case, it was further opined that the said injuries could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like chow, Ex. P.I. Their respective medico legal certificates Ex. PW 7/B, PW 7/C and PW 7/D were issued. 8. In each case, it was further opined that the said injuries could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like chow, Ex. P.I. Their respective medico legal certificates Ex. PW 7/B, PW 7/C and PW 7/D were issued. 8. During investigation, statements of various witnesses were record ed and on completion of the investigation both the appellants were challan- ed for the commission of the above said offences. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 9. In the statements under section 313, Cr. P. C. the defence of the accused is that though they were present on the place of occurrence on the relevant date, time and place but none of them inflicted the fatal blow of chow (small axe) on the head and chest of the deceased Bhuri Singh. According to their contention there was discord between the deceased and his step brother Dhani Ram (PW 2) and on account of that Dhani Ram (PW 2) inflicted the injuries on the head and chest of the deceased Bhuri Singh in their presence which proved to be fatal. 10. On appraisal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court thus acquitted both the accused for the commission of the offence under section 324, I. P. C. but convicted them for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Sh. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the prosecution witnesses are guilty of shifting their stand and they had failed to explain the serious injuries found on the person of the appellants. His next submission is that there are major contradictions and material discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 6, who are eye-witnesses, and that fact is sufficient for the prosecution version to make it doubtful and unbelievable. In other words, the genesis and mode in which the occurrence had taken place stands concealed by the prosecution and as such appellants are entitled to acquittal. 12. On the other hand, Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended that presence of the accused persons at the spot is not only admitted but the injuries on their person are also explained. 12. On the other hand, Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended that presence of the accused persons at the spot is not only admitted but the injuries on their person are also explained. In fact, according to him, Dhani Ram (PW 2) who intervened to save the life of Bhuri Singh deceased from the clutches of both the accused, though re mained unsuccessful could not be deemed to have remained a mere spectator and while snatching chow from the hands of the holder out of the accused, it is pointed out that injuries on the person of each one of the accused persons could be sustained. It is then contended that lamp was burning. All of them were sitting in the verandah and in that view of the matter, the part played by each one of the appellants could be judged, though it was darkness at the relevant time when occurrence took place. Another plea raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General is that Dhani Ram (PW 2) sustained injuries in the above said incident and he is the best eye-witness, who has narrated the entire incident in detail and his evidence, at least cannot be brushed aside on flimsy plea raised by the appellants. 13. We have been taken through the entire record by the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Deputy Advocate General. We have also closely scrutinized the same. On reappreciating the evidence, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to sustain. 14. There is no gain saying the fact that late Bhuri Singh has met a homicidal death and Dhani Ram PW 2 as also both the accused suffered injuries on their person in the incident in question. These findings have not been challenged by the accused before us. We are also satisfied that a dispute had occurred in the verandah of the residential building of the deceased. 15. The evidence against the appellants consists of PWs 2, 3, 6 and 14 besides medical evidence of PW 7. Out of them PWs 2, 3 and 6 are stated to be the eye-witnesses. It appears from the evidence that PWs 2 and 6 are not only the real relations of the deceased as step-brother and daughter-in-law but PW 2 has also suffered injuries on his person in the incident in question. Out of them PWs 2, 3 and 6 are stated to be the eye-witnesses. It appears from the evidence that PWs 2 and 6 are not only the real relations of the deceased as step-brother and daughter-in-law but PW 2 has also suffered injuries on his person in the incident in question. It is also reflected from the record that PW 3 was also present in the building wherein the incident occurred but whether he or PW 6 witnessed the occurrence or not, is doubtful. The trial Court has heavily banked upon the statements of the above said witnesses in convicting both the accused for the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The only question that falls for consideration is whether or not appellants or either of them participated in the crime. PWs 2, 3 and 6 read with medical evidence have fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to them, both had inflicted the fatal injuries on the person of the deceased and also assaulted Dhani Ram (PW 2). After going through their evidence, we do find there is some amount of consistency in their evidence but mere congruity or consistency are not the sole basis of proof. Sometime even falsehood is given an adroit appearance of proof, so that truth disappears and falsehood comes on the surface. This appears to be one of those cases. 16. There are several inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case so far as the participation of both the appellants are concerned. In t he first place, as per PWs 2 and 6 there was blood in the entire verandah which had sprinkled from the person of the deceased. Also deceased Bhuri Singh had suffered fatal injuries on his head as also his chest which fact is not disputed. Now, PW 2 Dhani Ram in his cross-examination categorically states that the clothes worn by PWs 3, 6 and Smt. Kupli (not produced) were stained with blood of late Bhuri Singh. PW 3 also corroborated this fact when he states that his clothes were stained with blood, which he had shown to the police. On the contrary, PW 6 states that her wearing apparels and that of her mother-in-law Smt. Kupli were not stained with blood Similar is the statement of PW 14, Laxmi Chand, the then investigating officer. PW 3 also corroborated this fact when he states that his clothes were stained with blood, which he had shown to the police. On the contrary, PW 6 states that her wearing apparels and that of her mother-in-law Smt. Kupli were not stained with blood Similar is the statement of PW 14, Laxmi Chand, the then investigating officer. He further goes on to state that at the time of his arrival PWs 2, 3 and 6 and Smt. Kupli wore found sitting at the spot and their clothes were not found stained with blood If we believe the statement of PW 2 in this respect, we find that no such blood stained clothes were taken into possession by the police nor produced or proved at any stage. The manner in which occurrence had taken place as per the statement of these, witnesses, the clothes worn by them would have in the ordinary course stained with blood. The cumulative effect of the above said discussion is that the police had not collected this important material which could have at least shown the presence of PWs 3 and 6 and Smt. Kupli (not produced) on the spot, it also goes to show that none of them witnessed the origin or manner in which the occurrence had taken place. In other words, all these persons reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. The view which we are taking into account is corroborated by the testimony of PW 6 Smt. Kala, when she states : “ I was then in the room trying to put my children to bed. In the meanwhile when I came out of the room, my father-in-law was already dead. When 1 was inside the room, I heard the noise of the quarrel. I saw the blood in the verandah." Again in cross-examination, she says that : "I had delivered a child two months before the occurrence......I do not remember that when I took my meal. However, my father- in-law, PWs Hari Singh and Dhani Ram had come to the house after taking the meal from outside. I had taken meal when it was quite dark. had retired to the room at about % p.m. alongwith my children. However, my father- in-law, PWs Hari Singh and Dhani Ram had come to the house after taking the meal from outside. I had taken meal when it was quite dark. had retired to the room at about % p.m. alongwith my children. My mother-in-law was sitting outside in the verandah." It is further strengthened by the non-production of Smt. Kupli, the widow of the deceased, who was the best person to throw light to the true facts as to the genesis or manner in which the occurrence had started or it had taken place. Rather an adverse inference in the circumstances can be drawn against prosecution that had she been produced, she would have positively corroborated the defence version of both the accused regarding the origin or manner and genesis of the occurrence. It appears that PW 3, Sh. Hari Singh, being a guest and PW 6 Smt. Kala as also Smt. Kupli being the female members were inside their respective rooms at the material time and they did not witnessed the occurrence. 17. The second inherent improbability emerging from the record is with respect to the use of the sole lethal weapon i. e. chow (small axe). The prosecution version as per statements of PWs 2, 3, 6 and 14 is that only one lethal weapon Ext. P-l had been used in the instant occurrence. Post-mortem report of late Shri Bhuri Singh shows that he has suffered a wound on the right side of head (scalp) measuring 5" x 2-1/i" x 3/4" in size. His brain matter had come out. Another incised wound on his left side of the chest was measuring 4" x 3" x 1-1/2". due to which three ribs had been cut. On the contrary, Sh. Dhani Ram PW 2 had suffered linear injury on the left side of the chest on the lateral aspect and was of the dimension of 3" x 1/2" besides another linear injury on the left side of his forearm as detailed above Accused had also suffered injuries as stated above. Now when we closely go through the sworn testimony of PW 7 Dr. V.D. Sharma, the incised wound of the dimension of 5" x 2-1/2" x 3/4" could only be inflicted with a blade of the same length. Now when we closely go through the sworn testimony of PW 7 Dr. V.D. Sharma, the incised wound of the dimension of 5" x 2-1/2" x 3/4" could only be inflicted with a blade of the same length. He has ruled out the possibility of this injury having been inflicted with a blade of a weapon less than 5" in length. Similar is his statement about the other incised wounds on the chest of the deceased. The length of the blade of chow (Ext. P-l) is 3" as is shown in its map. The injuries referred to above are of the same width and depth on their margins too In case of injuries suffered by PW 2 vide his medical certificate Ex. PW 7/B, PW 7 does not rule out the possibility of the same having been caused by a friendly hand nor all these other injuries to be the self-inflicted one with a sharp edged weapon. This witness states that injuries on PW 2 and both the accused could have been caused by chow (small axe) Ext. P-1. In other words, the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased Bhuri Singh definitely point out towards the use of another lethal weapon other than the chow Ext. P-l. 18. The third inherent improbability is found from the manner of assault on Nota Ram accused. According to the prosecution accused Molak Ram lifted chow Ext. P-l which was lying in his front and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased Bhuri Singh smashing his head and simultaneously Nota Ram accused took that chow Ext. P-l from the hands of Molak Ram and then inflicted another incised wound on the chest of the deceased by assaulting him with the said lethal weapon PW 2 Dhani Ram intervened and in this process he sustained injuries. He then states that when he was attempting to smash chow Ext. P-l from the accused persons they also sustained injuries. Further PW 7 has categorically stated that the injury on the back of Nota Ram accusedthough could have been caused by Ext P-l chow yet the blow therewith must have been given with sufficient force and only then this type of injury could be caused. In the case of the accused, PW 7 has ruled out the possibility that the injuries could have been self-inflicted or caused by a friendly hand. In the case of the accused, PW 7 has ruled out the possibility that the injuries could have been self-inflicted or caused by a friendly hand. Reading together the entire evidence of this witness, there can be no other conclusion except that the Nota Ram accused had been assaulted by some other person with a sharp edged weapon. In other words, even if we believe that accused persons had taken part in the crime, some other per son is also found involved in the commission of the crime. It also shows that there had been some scuffle between the two parties, may that be of the deceased on one hand and Dhani Ram PW 2 on the other or that of deceased and PW 2 Dhani Ram on one hand and the accused persons on the other hand. The cumulative effect of the above said patent evidence is that prosecution has suppressed certain other material facts which go to the root of the case. In that view of the matter the prosecution version becomes highly doubtful, to the benefit whereof the accused arc en titled to. 19. The fourth inherent improbability which stares on the face of the prosecution version is that the occurrence had taken place during the late hours of the night of 29th September, 1987. PW 3 Had Singh claims to be present at the spot. He does not say that he was dumb stricken on seeing the occurrence or he was in any way threatened with dire consequences by the accused persons. Rather in such a serious situation he cannot be deemed to have remained a mere spectator. At least he would have raised an alarm but he did not do so. Also he would have taken some steps to disclose the facts immediately to the neighbors but he did not follow the said path till 5 am. when as per Ganga Ram PW 1 entire incident on the following morning " as narrated to him by PW 3 Sh. Hari Singh. We have already observed above, the presence of this witness (PW 3) at the spot, witnessing the occurrence appears to be extremely doubtful nature. when as per Ganga Ram PW 1 entire incident on the following morning " as narrated to him by PW 3 Sh. Hari Singh. We have already observed above, the presence of this witness (PW 3) at the spot, witnessing the occurrence appears to be extremely doubtful nature. In that view of the matter, his disclosure to PW 1 as to the origin, genesis and manner in which the occurrence had taken place, appears to be concocted one on the basis of the information provided by PW 2 Dhani Ram. The injuries on the person of PW 2 Dhani Ram are of simple nature as per PW 7. He could have gone to the house of PW I Ganga Ram alongwith Hari Singh but he did not do so nor he explained the circumstances why he kept mum. Similar situation is, in our view, with respect to the conduct of the ladies, namely, Smt. Kala (PW 6) and Smt. Kupli (not produced). Also Chow Ext. P-l is an agricultural implement which is ordinarily found almost with every agriculturist. Why the accused persons who were proceeding lo their native place Loh-Ropra, would have taken Chow Ext. P-l with them has also not been explained by the prosecution. The evidence on -ecord does not show as to when they had gone out of their village and for what puipose and to which place. Also whether they anticipated that it would be night lime and that they should take some sharp edged weapon alongwith them for their safety or not is also not shown by any iota of evidence on record. Even otherwise PWs 2 and 6 are the near relations of the deceased and they would have positively indulged in -exaggeration, mis-representation and suppression of true facts with repeat to the occurrence. The record also shows that Smt Kupli was earlier the wife of Dhani Ram (PW 2) and she had married to the deceased Bhuri Singh. PW 2 Dhani Ram denies that he was married to Smt. Kupli. further PW 3 Sh. Had Singh in cross-examination admits that Smt. Kupli was married to Shri Dhani Ram curlier and later she married the deceased. The above said facts also do not rule out the possibility of Dhani Ram PW 2 having a grudge on this count against the deceased. further PW 3 Sh. Had Singh in cross-examination admits that Smt. Kupli was married to Shri Dhani Ram curlier and later she married the deceased. The above said facts also do not rule out the possibility of Dhani Ram PW 2 having a grudge on this count against the deceased. Thus the above said facts when read together, do not rule out the probability of the defence version regarding PW 2 Dhani Ram having assaulted late Sh Bhuri Singh and further when the accused persons intervened, in having inflicted blow on the back of Nota Ram, one of the accused persons, besides his co-accused. 20. Apart from the above said improbabilities existing in the prosecution version, the conduct of PW 2 also makes his testimony highly doubtful. According to him, he had not visited the house of his father-in- law on the date when occurrence took place. He denies this suggestion in the cross-examination. He rather states that he had accompanied late Sh Bhuri Singh to his house from the way where latter had met him. Then he states that Hari Singh met on the way and he accompanied to the house of deceased Bhuri Singh and they reached early in the morning on the date the occurrence took place. Then said they had i. e. he and PW 3 had reached in the house of Bhuri Singh in the evening. This statement is contradicted by the sworn testimony of PW 6 when she states that there was a function at the house of father-in-law of Dhani Ram (PW 2) on that date that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had participated in the function that they returned there at about 5 p m. accompanied by PWs 3 and 2 S/Sh. Hari Singh and Dhani Ram. None of the accused persons were found to be drunk. On the other hand, Sh. Dhani Ram who had attended the function, same having been celebrated in his father-in-law house, as per PW 6, he must have enjoyed himself with drinks also. No doubt he has also not been found to be drunk at the time of his examination but his medical check up was done after about 30 hours. He must be tipsy a little bit. It appears that he having grudge due to Bhuri Singh deceased having married his wife, he took revenge by participating in the aforesaid occurrence. 21. No doubt he has also not been found to be drunk at the time of his examination but his medical check up was done after about 30 hours. He must be tipsy a little bit. It appears that he having grudge due to Bhuri Singh deceased having married his wife, he took revenge by participating in the aforesaid occurrence. 21. Apart from the above, the prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. How, in what manner and who inflicted those injuries remained unexplained. PW 14 Sh. Laxmi Chand, the then Investigating Officer, admits that he came to know about admission of the accused persons at Civil Hospital, Mandi on 2-10-1987. He further admits that he did not inquire the reason as to why they had been admitted He also admits that post-mortem report alongwith medical certificates were received by him on 1-10-1987. Thus this witness is belied regarding his having been apprised about the admission of the accused on 210-1987 because medical certificates of the accused had also been received by him on 1-10-1987, as per his testimony. Why he did not investigate the reason as to how and in what manner both the accused had sustained injuries, remains also obscure. This fact also creates a dent in the prosecution version. 22. Then another fact which creates suspicion as to the truthfulness of the prosecution version is that it was dark when occurrence took place. Only a lamp is stated to be burning. What type of lamp it was and how much was the light, has not been explained by either prosecution wit nesses. Whether the assailants could be identified or not from a near distance is also not clear. If we presume that there was an oil lamp, which must have been kept at a little bit distance from the persons sitting in the verandah. Even we believe that PW 6 and Smt. Kupli had come into the verandah and seen the later part of the occurrence, it cannot be said that it had started in the same manner as they had stated before the Court. Even we believe that PW 6 and Smt. Kupli had come into the verandah and seen the later part of the occurrence, it cannot be said that it had started in the same manner as they had stated before the Court. As observed above they had also not raised any alarm nor disclosed the fact with respect to this occurrence to anyone till the police arrived nor even attempted to save their male members from being assaulted particularly when there is no evidence that they had also become dumb stricken on seeing the occurrence. 23. From whatsoever angle the prosecution version may be considered it makes the statements of all the prosecution witnesses full of exaggeration and mis-representation None has come forward with true facts. Even conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness if his statement is found acceptable. Here all the intrinsic circumstances discussed above, speak volumes against the prosecution case and raise considerable amount of suspicion in our minds regarding the complicity of either of the accused in the commission of the crime. It is well settled that men may lie but circumstances will not. 24. For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of both the appellants and acquit them of the charges framed against each one of them. Both of them be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.