A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 358/86; Peeru and another v. State of M. P. preferred against the same judgment. ( 2 ) THE appellants in both these appeals stand convicted under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer R. I. for six months, in a judgment impugned in these appeals, rendered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S. T. No. 40/85 on 14th July, 1986. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story is that on 6. 3. 1985 at about 10. 30 P. M. Rama Sb Vardichand armed with a stick came to the house of the deceased Narayan and asked him to come out of the house. Narayan came but and saw appellants Peeru, Ambaram, Rama S/o Kodar, Baboo and Badri in front of the house. Narayan on seeing then fled for his life but the aforesaid persons chased him declaring that they would kill him. He was surrounded by these persons and was assaulted. The shrieks of the victim proved eventful. The aforesaid persons after the attack escaped on seeing Bhuibai, grand son and the daughter-in- law. Narayan succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The First Information Report was lodged by Bhuribai (P. W. 1) which is marked in this case as Exh. P/1. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. K. C. Sharma (P. W. 14) and the post mortem report is Exh. P/37. The injury report of Bhuribai is Exh. P/9. The appellant Peeru also sustained injuries in the course of the same incident and the injury report is Exh. P/10. Spot maps Exh. P/2 and P/s were prepared. The weapons of assault were seized pursuant to the information and submitted for chemical examination. The report of chemical examiner is Exh. P/31. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court. The appellants were charged under Sections 341 and 302 I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty. On trial, they were acquitted of the charge under 5. 341 I. P. C. but were convicted under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced as noted above. 3. P/31. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court. The appellants were charged under Sections 341 and 302 I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty. On trial, they were acquitted of the charge under 5. 341 I. P. C. but were convicted under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced as noted above. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, Rama Ramchandra and Badri have preferred an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No. 357/86 whereas Peeru and Ambaram have preferred an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No. 358/86, which have been heard together as connected matters. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri Jaisingh learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals and Shri Ashok Kutumbale learned GA for the State in both these appeals and have perused the record. ( 5 ) SHRI Jaisingh has submitted that the deceased had a bad load of antecedents against him and the present case has been foisted on the appellants due to pre-existing enmity on account of the sale of agricultural lands. He submitted that false implication of appellant Ambaram is established by the fact that he is shown to have inflicted injuries by axe whereas medical evidence did not corroborate this allegation. He also submitted that appellant Rama Ramchandra has been falsely prosecuted whereas another Rama Sb Kadar was named in the First Information Report Exh. P/i as one of the assailants. According to him, there was no evidence about common intention as such and Badri has been falsely involved. As regards remaining appellant Peeru, the counsel urged, that he sustained injuries as proved in this case but this fact has been suppressed by the prosecution. He submitted that Bhuribai (P. W. 1) does not speak about any assault on her or existence of injury on her person either in First Information Report or her statement in Court. According to Shri Jai Singh, both P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have been wrongly introduced as eye witnesses. He invited our attention to the fact that it was Peeru who has lodged the report against deceased marked in this case as Exh. D/1, which could not be processed further as a result of the death of Narayan. He, therefore, submitted that Peeru was also unjustifidely implicated in this case. He, therefore, submitted that both these appeals deserved to be allowed. D/1, which could not be processed further as a result of the death of Narayan. He, therefore, submitted that Peeru was also unjustifidely implicated in this case. He, therefore, submitted that both these appeals deserved to be allowed. Shri Kutumbale, on the other hand, vehemently supported the impugned judgment and urged that the testimony of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 was quite natural and dependable. According to him, it was not necessary to explain the simple injuries alleged to be found on the person of appellant Peeru. Shri Kutumbale read to us the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and submitted that these statements had the ring of truth. He, thus, pointed out that criticism leveled by the appellants was non-meritorious and the appeals deserved to be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the said appeals deserve to be allowed. ( 7 ) IT is not disputed before us that the deceased died a homicidal death. Even otherwise we find that P. W. 15 Jayant Mukund Subedar, who conducted the autopsy, has proved this fact. The post mortem report is Exh. P137. P. W. 15 has stated that all injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. The essential question, however, is as to who did him to death. ( 8 ) THERE is no controversy on this position hat the fate of the case inevitably binges on the testimony of only two witnesses - P. W. 1 Bhuribai - the mother and P. W. 2kankubai the wife of the deceased. If ( 9 ) IT is also an undisputed fact that the appellant Peeru had lodged the report, in respect of the same incident in which he sustained injury, against the deceased but the investigation had to be closed due to death of Narayan. The report is Ex. D/1. We quote para 9 of P. W. 14 - K. C. Sharma, SHO, Raoti. (Hindi Matter) Peeru was medically examined by P. W. 10 Dr. Abhyakumar Chopra. The injury report is Exh. P110. We quote Incised wound over left side of chest (laterally) margin clear cut size 1" x 1/8 X 1/8 continue with abrasion liner 2 long skin depth. Clotted blood and corresponding cut mark also present over Kamij and Bandi. Simple injury (illeg.) 24 hrs. can be caused by hard and sharp object. Abhyakumar Chopra. The injury report is Exh. P110. We quote Incised wound over left side of chest (laterally) margin clear cut size 1" x 1/8 X 1/8 continue with abrasion liner 2 long skin depth. Clotted blood and corresponding cut mark also present over Kamij and Bandi. Simple injury (illeg.) 24 hrs. can be caused by hard and sharp object. ( 10 ) IT is also noticed that the deceased had a heavy load. of bad antecedents. P. W. 16 Rameshchandra Sharma has proved this fact from the record. He deposed ( para 3) that there were several criminal cases against the deceased. Some of these were under Section 435, 457/366 I. P. C. and Section 34 of Police Act. It was suggested that the deceased was the target of many persons who suffered at his hands. It was submitted that the appellants were falsely implicated due to dispute about the sale of land. ( 11 ) THE independent witnesses have not been examined in this case although many villagers are said to have rushed behind the deceased (para 8 of P. W. 2 ). ( 12 ) WE now proceed to scrutinize the evidence bearing in mind the aforesaid salient features of the case. ( 13 ) THE presence of P. W. 1 Bhuribai is sought to be asserted on the basis of one injury alleged to be sustained by her in the course of this incident. She was medically examined, after some delay on 7. 3. 1985 at 11. 55 hrs i. e. the next day, by P. W. 9 Dr. S. G. Lad Saheb who found one contusion on left index finger of the dimension 1 cm x 0. 5 cm, simple in nature. Strangely enough, this docs not find place in F. I. R. Exh. P /1 lodged by the alleged injured person P. W. 1 and worse still that she did not testify to this even in her sworn testimony. It thus seems that this piece has been introduced later subsequent to the lodgement of F. I. R. in an effort to lend assurance to her presence on the scene of the occurrence. In Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of M. P. it is held as under: No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. In Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of M. P. it is held as under: No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of The occurrence, so far as they were known up to 9. 15 p. m. on 23. 3. 1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow on Haribinder Singh, the father should certainly have mentioned it in the FIR. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. ' ( 14 ) THE aforesaid omission is significant in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. ( 15 ) IT is appropriate to examine the case against the appellants on individual basis. We shall examine it accordingly. a) As regards Rama alias Ramchandra Sb Vardichand: His name is not mentioned in FIR Ex. P/i. In fact, one Rama Sb Bonder Bheel is named as one of the assailants. In sworn testimony, P. W. 1 has implicated Ratna Sb Ambaram (who is not prosecuted) as one of the assailants (para 2 ). She was unable to explain as to why the name of this Rama did not find place in Ex. P/i or in her police statement. (para 8 ). She also prepared an affidavit about Rama (para 12 ). She categorically slated that the accused bearing name Rama, present in the court, did not assault and was not even present on the spot. There is thus, considerable doubt about the participation of the convicted Rama. The approach of the Trial Court is neither proper nor supportable from the evidential material available on the record. b) As regards Badri: There is no specific allegation about this appellant in FIR Ex. P/i. In para 2, P. W. 1 Bhuribai only spoke about the presence. There is absolutely no evidence of the pre-concert and common intention as such. It would be extremely hazardous to sustain conviction on such a vague accusation and slender evidence. b) As regards Badri: There is no specific allegation about this appellant in FIR Ex. P/i. In para 2, P. W. 1 Bhuribai only spoke about the presence. There is absolutely no evidence of the pre-concert and common intention as such. It would be extremely hazardous to sustain conviction on such a vague accusation and slender evidence. c) As regards Ambaram: P. W. 1 Bhuribai stated in para 2 of her statement that the appellant Ambaram inflicted injuries on the deceased Narayan by means of an axe. P. W. 2 Kankubai also deposed on oath that Ambaram was armed with an axe and he inflicted injuries on the deceased by means of this weapon. P. W. 15 Dr. Jayant Mukund Subedar opined in para 5 of his statement that all the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by hard and blunt objects. It is, thus, clear that there is apparent inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The aforesaid witnesses have not stated that the axe was used as a weapon from the blunt side. In fact, it has to be assumed that when the witnesses deposed about the use of the axe what they meant was that it was used as a sharp edged weapon. In our view, this inconsistency is fatal for the prosecution so far as the alleged complicity of the appellant Ambaram is concerned. In Hallu and Ors. v. State of M. P. , it is held as under: According to the High Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore the evidence of the eye witnesses could safely accepted. We should have thought that normally when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon. ( 16 ) IF the implication of the aforesaid three appellants Rama, Badri and Ambaram is eliminated then we are left only with the case so far as the appellant Peeru was concerned. ( 16 ) IF the implication of the aforesaid three appellants Rama, Badri and Ambaram is eliminated then we are left only with the case so far as the appellant Peeru was concerned. In fact, the learned GA very frankly stated that it was Peeru alone against whom the case was made out without any reasonable doubt. We shall examine the contention with regard to Peeru. ( 17 ) IT is on record that Peeru sustained injuries in the same incident. However, manner in which such injury was caused was not disclosed by P. W. 1 even in the FIR, Exh. P/i. In matter Sen and Ors. v. The State of U. P. , it is held that it was necessary to explain the injury in the FIR itself. We do not find explanation in the FIR. ( 18 ) THERE is no explanation even in the statements made in the Court. On the other hand, P. W. 1 Bhuribaistated in para 8 that she saw no injury on tile person of the appellant Peeru. Another witness P. W. 2 also spoke in the same voice and stated that she did not see any injury on the person of the appellant Peeru. To our mind, this non-explanation of the injury delivers dent of the prosecution evidence and gives an impression that the and occurrence of the incident was evilishly suppressed. In State of Rajasthan v. Madho and another, it is held as under: The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the fact that they have failed to explain the injuries sustained by the two respondents in the course of the same transaction, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as it was hazardous to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the injured P. W. 2. ( 19 ) THERE are yet another aspect which must engage our attention. One: - P. W. 1 admitted that she did not have very good eye sight (para 9 ). She also admitted that it was dark when the appellants assaulted Narayan (para 7 ). P. W. 2 Kankubai also stated that there was darkness at the time of the incident. Now, when this was the condition, the prosecution was under obligation to prove satisfactorily as to what was the source of artificial light which facilitated the identification. She also admitted that it was dark when the appellants assaulted Narayan (para 7 ). P. W. 2 Kankubai also stated that there was darkness at the time of the incident. Now, when this was the condition, the prosecution was under obligation to prove satisfactorily as to what was the source of artificial light which facilitated the identification. ( 20 ) THE prosecution should have properly proved the source of light FIR and spot maps do not speak about this and the witnesses also kept mum. Silence is not always gold. (Ranchhodsingh Diwansingh v. State of M. P ). In Rajvirsingh and another v. State of M. P. , it is held as under: It is also doubtful if there was sufficient artificial light to property see their faces. It may be mentioned that although Imratlal (P. W. 1) deposed that electric light was on in his hut when the incident took place, that fact was conspicuously not mentioned in the report Exh. P/i lodged by Imratlal. ( 21 ) IT thus, appears that there was darkness and there was no sufficient source of light. It was, therefore, not very easy to identify the persons attacking the deceased Narayan. Many persons due to his bad record, were annoyed with him. The possibility of falso implication of the appellants is, thus, not ruled out. ( 22 ) P. W. 2 Kunkubai also admitted in para 2 of her statement that the appellant Peeru had gone towards the police station for the purpose of lodging the report. In fact, as stated above, the report Exh. D/1, was also lodged. Now a person guilty of the offence as alleged would seldom think of going to the police station for the purpose of lodging the report. This clearly indicates the fact that the prosecution has suppressed the true story. Two:- There is drastic departure of the story as projected in Exh. P/i through the statements made in the Court. In Ex. P/i, the incident is alleged to have taken place outside the house whereas in the statements before the court, it is broken into two pieces, one, outside the house and, thereafter, in the house. Now this story in totally at variance with the story put forward in Exh. P/i through the statements made in the Court. In Ex. P/i, the incident is alleged to have taken place outside the house whereas in the statements before the court, it is broken into two pieces, one, outside the house and, thereafter, in the house. Now this story in totally at variance with the story put forward in Exh. P/i. ( 23 ) IT may be noted that it was the deceased Narayan who claimed to have gone to the house of the appellant Peeru. The only controversy was whether he went there of his own or he reached there in response to the invitation. To our mind, one does not respond in this fashion armed with a knife. It is, thus, clear that the necessity of going to the house of the appellant Peeru was not correctly stated. The Trial Court has already recorded acquittal of the charge under S. 341 I. P. C. ( 24 ) TO sum up we may say that the suppression of the true story, the non-explanation of the injury found on the person of the appellant Peeru, the non availability of sufficient light for the purpose of identification, the non-examination of independent witnesses are some of the material circumstances which introduced serious doubt as regards participation in the manner stated by the aforesaid witnesses. ( 25 ) ON a closer scrutiny we find that the witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 do not inspire confidence and the Trial Court was clearly in error in placing implicit faith on them and recording conviction on that basis. Consequently, disagreeing with the conclusion of the Trial Court we find that the verdict is clearly subvertible. The story seems apocryphal. ( 26 ) IN the circumstances, we allow both these appeals and vacate the verdict of conviction. The conviction as well as the sentence as recorded by the learned Trial Court are set aside. The appellants in both the appeals are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. ( 27 ) THE appeals, thus, stand allowed. Let a copy of the judgment be placed in the record of Cr. Appeal No. 358/86. Appeal allowed. .