JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24th April, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 11 Khanu Ram Bishnoi is the recorded khatedar of agricultural holding bearing khasra No, 108 measuring 30 bigha and 13 biswa situated in village Aleti. It is alleged that appellant Poonma and his brothers Gordhau (DW 2) and Badra (DW 6) fraudulently got a registered sale - deed dated 22-11-82 (Ex.D 4) executed from Khanu Ram in their favour in respect of the said land, though no consideration was passed nor possession thereof was given to them. Smt. Gavri, wife of Khanu Ram along with her sons, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against appellant Poonma Ram and his brothers in respect of the disputed land, wherein the S.D.O. Barmer was scheduled to inspect the disputed land. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17-6-1985, PW 9 Ashu, who is the son-in-law of PW 11 Khanu Ram and who is resident of village Bhand, came to village Aleti and informed Khanu Ram that the S.D.O. will be coming to inspect the site and asked the latter to go there Hence in the morning of 18.6-1985 PW 11 Khanu Ram along with his wife Sint. Gavri and son Sada Ram (PW 8) went to their Dhani (hemlet) situated in that field. It is alleged that appellant Poonma and his brothers Faglu, Gordhan, Chokha and their wives who were already there, asked them to go away from there and thereatened to forcibly oust them. It is alleged that thereupon Khanu, Smt. Gavri and Sada Ram returned and while they were going back to their 'Dhani.' near village Aleti, PW 9 Ashu and PW 2 Purkha Jat met them in the way and to - whom they narrated the said incident. It is also the case of the prosecution that Ashu and Purkha Jat told them that they will go to the disputed field and talk to the appellant and his brothers. Thereafter, Ashu, Purkha and Sada Ram went towards the said field, while Khanu and his wife stayed back. It is also the case of the prosecution that Ashu and Purkha Jat told them that they will go to the disputed field and talk to the appellant and his brothers. Thereafter, Ashu, Purkha and Sada Ram went towards the said field, while Khanu and his wife stayed back. It is alleged that when they reached near the disputed field appellant Poonma armed with a dharia along with Faglu. Gordhan and Chokha, who had lathis and their wives as well as Kutnari Soni aged 10 years daughter of Badra Ram (who were empty handed) came out from the 'Dhani' and asked them not to enter in the disputed field, When Ashu, Sada and Purkha were about 50-60 paces away, all of a sudden appellant Poonma Ram inflicted two dharia blows on the head and neck of his niece Kumari Soni in quick succession causing injuries to her, and that she fell down bleeding profusely. Kumari Soni succumbed to those injuries. According to the prosecution story, the appellant had committed the murder of Kumari Soni so that Khanu Rain and his companions may be falsely implicated and thereby prevented from taking the possession of the disputed field. The information regarding the said incident was given by the Sada Ram to PW 1 Uda Ram, who was performing the ,Hawan' at the house of his uncle Teja Ram on the third day of the death of his grand-mother. PW 1 Uda in his turn lodged report Ex. P. I on the same day at about 5.30 p. m. at Police Station Dhorimanna and on the basis of which FIR Ex. P-12 was scribed and crime No. 62/85 under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered. PW 14 Bhanwar Singh, S.H.O. inspected the site, prepared site plan, and its memo, memo of dead body of Kumari Soni and Panchnama Ex. P 3 and Ex P 14 and seized and sealed the blood - stained soil and controlled sample of soil from the place where the dead body was found lying. The appellant was arrested on 19-6-1985 vide arrest memo Ex. D.3 wherein the injuries sustained by him were specifically mentioned. It is alleged that in pursuance to the information given by the appellant vide information memo Ex. P-21, blood - stained dharia Article 1 was recovered. The appellant was arrested on 19-6-1985 vide arrest memo Ex. D.3 wherein the injuries sustained by him were specifically mentioned. It is alleged that in pursuance to the information given by the appellant vide information memo Ex. P-21, blood - stained dharia Article 1 was recovered. Blood - stained clothes of the appellant namely shirt (Art. 2) and dhoti (Art. 3) were also seized. After the usual investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Barmer, who committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Charge for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence to with Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 24. The appellant in his examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he along with his brothers had purchased the disputed land from Khanu through a registered sale deed for consideration and were in cultivatory possession of the said field and were also residing thereon by erecting 'Dhani' since Samvat Year 2041. He further asserted that on the day of alleged incident Khanu along with his party numbering 13 persons armed with sword, axe, dhariya and lathis had come to their 'Dhani' situated in the said field to forcibly take its possession, that they broke open the doors of his Jhumpa (but), forcibly took him out and belaboured him and that Ashu had inflicted injuries to Kumari Soni by his sword and killed her. He pleaded that during the said incident, he also sustained injuries and tried to rescue Soni and as such his clothes became blood - stained. He stated that on the same day, he had gone to the Police Station, Dliorimanna to lodge the report, but the S.H.O. asked him to sit down there and did not register the case. He, therefore, filed a criminal complaint in the Barmer court about the said incident. The appellant also examined 6 witnesses in his defence, including DW 6 Badra Ram, the father of the deceased Kumari Soni. He, therefore, filed a criminal complaint in the Barmer court about the said incident. The appellant also examined 6 witnesses in his defence, including DW 6 Badra Ram, the father of the deceased Kumari Soni. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution evidence was consistent and trust-worthy, that minor contradictions in the statements of eye - witnesses were natural and of negligible magnitude, that since the appellant had sustained simple injuries, it was not necessary for the prosecution to explain those and that the appellant had to right of private defence. He further held that the defence story was improbable and false. He further held that it was well proved that there was enmity and litigation between the parties regarding the alleged sale of the disputed field and that in order to falsely implicate the complainant party, the appellant had committed the murder of his niece. Hence the motive for crime was also well proved. He, therefore, by his impugned judgment dated 24-4-1986 found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. S.R. Singhni, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.M Singhvi, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and perused the record in extenso. 4. Mr. S R. Singhi has strenuously contended that the learned trial Judge has not discussed, analysed and evaluated in the right perspective and that the other hand he has scanned the defence evidence with a faulty notion as if the burden lay on the defence to prove the innocence of the accused. According to him, from the oral as well as on documentary evidence, it was firmly established that the appellant and his brothers, who had purchased the disputed field from P.W. 11 Khanu Rani through a registered sale-deed dated 22-11-1982 (Ex. D. 4) were residing therein after constructing their .Dhani` thereon. According to him from the memo of site-inspection prepared by the Land Records Inspector Ex D. 5, order of the S D O., Barmer dated 21.6-1984 (Ex, D. 6) and the order of the Telisildar, Gudhamalani dated 4-12-1984 (Ex. D. 7), it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant and his brothers were in actual physical possession of the disputed field. D. 7), it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant and his brothers were in actual physical possession of the disputed field. According to him it is also amply proved that Smt. Gavri wife of Khanu Ram and her sons Hari Ram and Sada Ram had filed a suit against P.W. 11 Khanu Ram and appellant and his brothers in the court of S.D.O., Banner, wherein the S.D.O. had fixed 18-6-1985 as the date for inspecting the site for deciding the application for temporary injunction filed under section 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Shri Singhi has submitted that Khanu Ram along with his son-in-law Ashu Ram and members of his party armed with dharia, sword and lathis had borne to the disputed field to forcibly dispossess the appellant and his brothers and inflicted injuries to appellant and that Ashu Ram had inflicted a sword blow on the head of Soni, who had come to rescue the appellant and thus killed her. He has vehemently contended that it is highly unnatural and improbable that the appellant would killed his real niece, and therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed a manifest illegality in holding that the motive for the crime was well proved. He has further submitted that when the S.H 0 did not register the case, the appellant had to file a criminal complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, which was sent under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the S.H.O., Police Station, Dhorimanna and whereupon crime No. 102/85 under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered against Ashu Ran, Purkha Rim, Khanu and others for the murder of Kumari Soni, but P.W. 14 Bhanwer Singh did not care to investigate that case and illegally dropped the proceedings. Shri Singhi has, therefore, argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has simply reiterated the reasonings given by the learned trial court. 6. We have given our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has simply reiterated the reasonings given by the learned trial court. 6. We have given our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. It is need-less to mention that there has always been a golden thread in the web of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is required to prove the offence against the accused by adducing clear, cogent and convincing evidence and that this burden cannot be shifting on the accused. It is also equally a well crystalised proposition of law that the accused is not required to prove his innocence with the same standard of proof with which the prosecution is required to prove its case, and that the accused cannot be convicted simply because the defence story is not probable or highly doubtful. In other words the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any substantial assistance from the weakness of the defence. In the case in hand, the learned trial Judge has apparently adopted a wrong approach. While on the one hand, he has closedly scrutinised and examined the defence evidence in micro-details and tried to project its in consistences and contradictions but on the other hand he has not discussed, analysed and scrutinised the prosecution evidence in a detailed manner and blindly relied on the testimony of alleged eye-witnesses, who were interested and unreliable witnesses. 7. We have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case. First of all, let us find out as to who was in the actual physical and cultivatory possession of the disputed field on the day of alleged incident. A perusal of registered sale-deed dated 28.11.1982 (Ex. D. 4), which was filed by the appellant before the S.H.O. but the same was not produced along with the charge-sheet, reveals that Khanu Ram had sold his khatedari land bearing khasra No l08 to appellant Poonma Ram and his brothers Badra and Gardhan for an amount of Rs 8,000/- by executing the said sale-deed in their favour. In registered sale-deed (Ex. D. 4), it has been specifically mentioned that the possession of the said land was given to the appellant and his brothers. In registered sale-deed (Ex. D. 4), it has been specifically mentioned that the possession of the said land was given to the appellant and his brothers. It appears that during a revenue campaign the Tehsildar, Gudharnalani without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and his brothers, by his order dated 15-1-1983 had refused to sanction mutation on the basis of the sale deed (Ex. D 4) in their favour. Therefore, they filed an appeal. The S D.O. Barmer by his judgment dated 21-6.1981 (Es. D 6) accepted the appeal filed by Poonma and his brothers, set aside the order of the Tehsildar and ordered that mutation of the disputed land be recorded in favour of the appellant and his brothers. The Inspector (Land Records). Dhorimanna inspected the disputed field and vide his memo of inspection dated 21-8-1984 (Ex. D 5) found that appellant ['Janina Ram and his brothers were in physical possession of the disputed field and were also residing there by erecting hamlets, thereon. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Gadhamalani by his order dated 4.12-1984 (Es. D. 7) also held that appellant Poonma Ram and his brothers Badra and Gardhan were in cultivatory possession of the said land and corded that they should be recorded as sub-tenants in the Jamabandi for kharif crop of Samvat Year 2041, which is equivalent to the year 1984. Against this voluminous documentary evidence, the prosecution has simply submitted a copy of Khasra Girdawari of Samvat Year 2038 to 2041 (Ex. P 10). It may be mentioned here that Khasra Girdhawari is not a record of right. PW 12 Guman Singh, Patwari Halka has deposed that he had issued copy of Khasra Girdawari Samvat Year 2038 to 2041 (Ex. P 10) on 18-3.85 and that thereafter as per orders of the Tehsildar, Gudhamalani be had recorded the names of appellant Poonma and his brothers Faglu and Gordhan as sub-tenants in Khasra Girdawari in respect of the disputed field. Therefore, Khasra Girdawari (Ex. P 10) which was issued much before the date of alleged incident is irrelevant and the same does not prove the cultivatory possession of PW 11 Khanu Ram. On the other hand it testifies the cultivatory possession of the appellant and his brother's on the disputed field since Kharif Samvat Year 2041 which is equivalent to June, 1984. More-over PW 1 Uda in his FIR (Ex. On the other hand it testifies the cultivatory possession of the appellant and his brother's on the disputed field since Kharif Samvat Year 2041 which is equivalent to June, 1984. More-over PW 1 Uda in his FIR (Ex. P 12) at portion 'A' to 'B' has also specifically mentioned that in the disputed field, Badra and Faglu were residing after making their 'Dhani' thereon. PW 3 Tej Dan has also deposed like-wise Even PW 8 Sada Ram had admitted in his cross-examination that on the day of alleged incident he along with his father Khanu Ram had gone to the disputed .field for taking possession. Therefore, from documents Ex. D 5, Ex. D 6 and Ex. D 7 as well as the registered sale-deed (Ex D 4) and testimony of PW 1, PW 8 and PW 12 it stands amply proved that the appellant and his brothers were in physical and cultivatory possession of the disputed field and were living thereon by erecting hamlets on the day of alleged occurrence. 8. Now, the next question arises as to how the alleged occurrence took place and who was the aggressor party ? 9. The prosecution has filed a certified copy of the order-sheet dated 10-6-1985 (Ex. P. 24) of the court of Assistant Collector, Barmer and a perusal thereof firmly establishes that the said Assistant Collector in an application filed under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, filed on behalf of Smt. Gavri wife of Khanu Ram and others against the appellant and his brothers had fixed 18-6-1985 for inspection of the disputed field at village Aleti. 10. P.W. 11 Khanu Ram has admitted that be has also filed a civil suit against appellant Poonma and his brothers for the cancellation of the registered sale-deed pertaining to this disputed field in the court of Civil Judge, Barmer. PW 11 Khanu Ram has deposed that his son-in-law Ashu Ram had informed him on 17-6-1985 that the officer will be coming to the disputed field and asked him to go there. Thereupon, in the morning of the alleged day of occurrence he along with his wife Smt. Gavri and son Sada Ram aged 13 years had gore to the disputed field and that at that time no body was present in the 'Dhani'. Thereupon, in the morning of the alleged day of occurrence he along with his wife Smt. Gavri and son Sada Ram aged 13 years had gore to the disputed field and that at that time no body was present in the 'Dhani'. He stated that the moment of tin e they went inside the 'Dhani', appellant Poonma along with Faglu, Gordhan, Chokha and their wives and Kumari Soni came there, that appellant was armed with dharia while other male persons bad lathies. He stated that the appellant asked them to get out from the 'Dhani' and threatened to kill them and that thereupon they went away from the 'Dhani'. He deposed that in the way Ashu and Purkha Jat met them to whom they informed about the said incident. Khanu Ram stated that thereafter Ashu Ram asked him to accompany them, but he along with his wife stayed back. However, his son Sada Ram accompanied Ashu Ram and Purkha Ram. Khanu Ram further stated that after some time Sada Ram, Ashu Ram and Purkha Ram came back and told him that the appellant had killed Kurrari Soni. The prosecution has not cared to examine Smt. Gavri to corroborate the testimony of Khanu Ram. 11. P.W. 9 Ashu Ram is the son-in-law of Khanu Ram and is a resident of village Bhand. He is a highly interested witness. He has stated that he along with Purkha Ram and Sada Ram went towards the disputed field, that they were all empty handed, that when they reached near the disputed field, appellant Poonma Ram armed with a dharia and his brothers armed with lathies and their wives along with Kumari Soni came out from the 'Dhani' and that appellant threatened them to keep away otherwise they would be killed He deposed that at that time he was about 50-60 paces away from the appellant that thereafter all of a sudden appellant inflicted two dharia blows in quick succession on the head of Kumari Soni, who fell down, that the appellant picked her and took her away inside the 'Dharli' and that thereafter they came back. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that for last three years, litigation regarding the disputed field was going on between Khanu Ram and Badra. He has denied that a case was registered against him. Purkha Ram and others regarding the murder of Kumari Soni. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that for last three years, litigation regarding the disputed field was going on between Khanu Ram and Badra. He has denied that a case was registered against him. Purkha Ram and others regarding the murder of Kumari Soni. But on the other hand P W. 14 Bhanwar Singh SHO as well as P.W. 2 Purkha have clearly admitted that in respect of the alleged incident a counter case was also registered on the complaint of the appellant against Ashu, Purkha and others for the alleged murder of Kumari Soni. As per statements of Ashu, Purkha and Sada Ram, they had not entered into the disputed field and were standing about 50-60 paces away. Therefore it appears quite unnatural and highly improbable as to why the appellant inflicted the dharia blows on his real niece without any provocation? P.W. 14 Bhanwar Singh, S.H.O., has clearly admitted that when he inspected the site, he found bloodstains at the place where the dead body of Kumari Soni was lying outside the 'Dhani' as well as inside the court-yard of the 'Dhani'. He has further admitted that he had also found marks of force on the wooden door of the apartment situated inside the 'Dhani'. In the memo of site plan also these facts find mention. But Bhanwar Singh, I.O. did not care to take the sample of blood-stained soil inside the court-yard of the 'Dhane'. The marks of force on the wooden door of the apartment situated inside the .Dhane also corroborate the defence theory that Khanu Ram and his party armed with weapons had come inside the 'Dhani' and that they had broken upon the wooden door of Jhumpa (apartment) inside the 'Dhani' that they had taken out the appellant and that they wanted to forcibly dispossess him and his brothers. 12. P.W. 3 Tag Dan Charan in his statement recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code (Ex. P. 5) has specifically deposed before the Magistrate that on the day of alleged occurrence he had seen Ashu Ram armed with a sword, Purkha Ram with a dharia and Sada Ram having a stick (Medi) going towards the disputed field. This witness was however declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Tag Dan before the trial Judge has also repeated the same story. 13. P W. 2 Purkha Ram Jat is also an interested witness. This witness was however declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Tag Dan before the trial Judge has also repeated the same story. 13. P W. 2 Purkha Ram Jat is also an interested witness. He has specifically admitted that a case was registered against him for the alleged murder of Kumari Soni and that police had inquired from him. He has however denied that he belongs to Khanu Ram's party and that on the day of incident he along with 12 others armed with dharia and other weapons had gone to the disputed field and inflicted injuries to the appellant and that when Kumari Soni intervened a dharia blow was inflicted on her head. In our opinion he is not an independent witness and his testimony is not at all reliable. 14. P.W. 8 Dada Ram is a boy of 13 years. fie has admitted that on the day of alleged incident he along with his father and mother had gone to the disputed field to take possession of the Dhane. He stated that appellant and his brothers were already in side the 'Dhani' and that they had threatened to kill them, so he along with his parents came back. He deposed that thereafter Ashu and Purkha met in the way, that on their assurance that they would settle the matter and make the appellant understand, he accompanied them to the disputed field. He deposed that they did not enter the disputed field and were at about 50-60 paces away, that the appellant armed with a dharia came from the 'Dhani' and suddenly dealt dharia blows to his niece Kurnari Soni, who fell down. Ashu, Purkha and Sada have however denied the suggestion that they had gone there armed with sword, dharia, axe and lathis, broken open the doors of the Jhumpa, snatched out the appellant therefrom, belaboured him and that when Kumari Soni intervened, they caused injuries on hear head resulting in her death. 15. We have very carefully perused the statements of P.W. 2 Purkha Jat and P.W 8 Sada Ram and P.W. 9 Ashu Ram. In our considered opinion their statements are replete with material inconsistencies and substantial contradictions and that their testimony is tainted and unreliable. 15. We have very carefully perused the statements of P.W. 2 Purkha Jat and P.W 8 Sada Ram and P.W. 9 Ashu Ram. In our considered opinion their statements are replete with material inconsistencies and substantial contradictions and that their testimony is tainted and unreliable. It is quite unnatural that as per version of these witnesses, they did not enter the disputed field and were about 50-60 paces away from the 'Dhani', the appellant along with his brothers and their wives and deceased Soni, came out side the 'Dhani' and then without any provocation or any rhyme or reason appellant suddenly inflicted two dharia blows on the head of Kumari Soni. 16. PW 14 Bhanwar Singh, 1.O, has specifically, admitted that the appellant had sustained injuries on his person,.which were mentioned in the arrest memo Ex. D 3 dated 19-6-85. Therefore, it was the duty of the Investigation Officer to get the injuries of the appellant examined by a doctor immediately. However, he did not do so. On the other hand, the appellant was got medically examined as late as on 21-6-1985. The explanation given by the 1.O. for this delay is far from satisfactory. The prosecution has produced the injury report of the appellant Ex. P 15, which hag been well proved by DW 1 Dr. N.T J. Hirant Appellant Poonma had an abrasion on his parietal region, a lacerated wound on the little finger of his left hand and two abrasions on his nose. But the alleged eye-witnesses namely PW 2 Purkha, PW 8 Sada and PW 9 Ashu Ram have categorically stated that they did not see any injury on the person of the appellant The injuries were caused on the person of the appellant at the time of the alleged incident. Hence it appears that these witnesses have concealed some material facts and have not given out the full and true account of the alleged incident. it was the duty of the prosecution to have explained the injuries of the appellant. The learned trial Judge has simply ignored this material factor on the ground that those injuries were simple and of trivial in nature and that non-explanation thereof was not fatal to the prosecution case. In our opinion this is not the correct approach. it was the duty of the prosecution to have explained the injuries of the appellant. The learned trial Judge has simply ignored this material factor on the ground that those injuries were simple and of trivial in nature and that non-explanation thereof was not fatal to the prosecution case. In our opinion this is not the correct approach. PW 9 Ashu, PW 2 Purkha and PW 8 Sada have suppressed material facts of the incident and, therefore, the trial Judge has committed a patent illegality in relying upon their testimony. 17. There is yet another factor to be taken into consideration. PW 14 Bhanwar Singh, S.H.O. has admitted that he had registered Crime No. 102/85 under section 302 Indian Penal Code against Purkha Rain, Ashu Rana and others for the alleged murder of Kunari Soni on the basis of criminal complaint filed by the appellant before the Magistrate and which was forwarded to him under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. However, he did not investigate that case because in the case registered on the report of Uda Ram. He has stated that he did not investigate the Counter Case he had already interrogated the witnesses. This is not at all a satisfactory explanation. The prosecution has also not filed any document to show that a final report was submitted in the counter case i.e. Crimi No. 102/85. The Investigation Officer had no authority to drop the investigation suo motu without submitting his final report to the Magistrate especially when that case was registered under section 156 (3) Cr. PC. This lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer reflects that he has not conducted the investigation of this case impartially. This significant and important factor has also been ignored by the learned trial Judge, which has positively caused a great prejudice to the appellant. 18. In the instant case. the motive for committing the crime has also not been established satisfactorily. DW 6 Badra RAM, who is the father of the de-leased Kumari Soni, has deposed that Ashu Ram, Purkha Ram and others numbering 13 persons, armed with sword, dharia and lathis had come to their .Dhani situated in the disputed field and tried to forcibly dispossess them and that Kumari Soni had received the dharia blows at the hands of PW 2 Purkha Ram. He has further stated that he had immediately gone to the Police Station, Dhorimanna. He has further stated that he had immediately gone to the Police Station, Dhorimanna. where he had narrated the whole incident, but the S.H.O, did not register the case. 19. The report of the F.S.L. regarding the blood group on the dharia (Art. 1) alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant is also value in complete and in conclusion because the blood thereon bad already disintegrated. There is also no connecting evidence that the hairs found on the blade of dharia (Art. 1) were similar and indentical with the sample of hair taken by the Investigation Officer from the dead body of Kumari Soni. Therefore, the recovery of dharia and report of FSL also do not connect the appellant with the guilt conclusively. The learned trial Judge has also not taken into account this missing link in the prosecution evidence. 20. In Biri Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1992 Cr LJ (SC) 1510 , it was the specific case of the accused that at the time when they purchased the land, the possession thereof was handed over to them by the vendors and that they had continued to enjoy the said land having been in physical and actual possession and that on the date of occurrence when they started ploughing the lard with a tractor, a crowd inclusive of the deceased and the injured persons forming themselves into an unlawful assembly came to the field in their possession, and that they not only physically prevented them from ploughing the land but also attacked them with spears and caused injuries to a few of them. The accused had also pleaded that they had fired gun shots in exercise of their right of private defence of their person and the property, which resulted in death of three persons. The three eye-witnesses were found to be not speaking the whole truth, but on the other hand they had suppressed certain material facts, which if revealed would have gone against the prosecution case. The evidence of the witnesses suffered from the vice of self contradictions and improbablities and not acceptable. The Apex Court held that it was a case where it was not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood and to shift the grain from the chaff, because the truth and falsehood were so inextricably inter-woven together, and acquitted the accused. The evidence of the witnesses suffered from the vice of self contradictions and improbablities and not acceptable. The Apex Court held that it was a case where it was not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood and to shift the grain from the chaff, because the truth and falsehood were so inextricably inter-woven together, and acquitted the accused. In the case in hand also the possession of the disputed field was with the appellant and his brothers and Khanu Ram, Ashu Ram and the complainant party bad gone to the field to forcibly dispossess them. The alleged eye-witnesses have also not spoken the whole truth and have concealed the material facts. The motive has not been satisfactorily explained and the defence theory appears to be quite probable. 21. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, in our considered opinion, the prosecution evidence is vague, incomplete, inconsistent, unnatural and untrustworthy and, therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant had intentionally inflicted two dharia blows on the head of Kumari Soni resulting in her death. The prosecution has also completely failed to prove the motive of the crime. Hence, the prosecution has not been successful to bring home the offence Under section 302 Indian Penal Code against the appellant belong all reasonable doubt and as such the in pugned judgment cannot be sustained and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 22. The resultant of the above discussion is that we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated 24th April, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, and acquit appellant Poonma of the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code The appellant be released henceforth, if he is not required in any other caseAppeal allowed. *******