JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Bharatpur, dated 31st July, 1991, in Sessions Case No. 94/1987, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the six accused appellants under section 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced each of them with imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- In default of payment of fine each of them was directed to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. They have further been convicted for offence under sections 323 read with 149 and 147 IPC and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment each and for offence under section 148 IPC to six months simple imprisonment. 2. This appeal presents peculiar circumstances about the unfair investigation, suppression of material facts and deliberately concealing of the facts from the court. As per the prosecution, the case started on a First Information Report which was lodged on 18th October, 1987 by one Mooli Ram son of Nanga. This was handed over to Shri Raghuveer Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Garhi Bajna at 1.00 p.m. when the S.H.O. happened to be in village Tarsuma for investigation in connection with an another First Information Report No. 26/87. It was alleged by Mooli Ram in his report that at about 7/8 in the morning, on 9th October, 1987 when Bhoori Singh was returning from forest after taking fodder and moment he unloaded the fodder in the Get (Cattle shed), at that time accused persons Lakhan, Suresh, Ramesh, Banni, Siya, Ganpat, Durga, Lachchi and Girdhar all armed with lathies and farsi encircled him and started beating him. Ram Dayal came to the rescue of Bhoori Singh who too was inflicted injuries. On hearing hue and cry of the assailed Umed, Lakhanpal, Pyare, Bhoori Singh and Radhey came running at the place of occurrence and seeing them, the accused ran away. Ram Dayal and Bhoori Singh were taken to hospital at Bayana from where they were sent to Bharatpur Hospital. Bhoori Singh was admitted in the hospital but Ram Dayal succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of this report, First Information Report No. 28/87 was taken down at Police Station Garhi Bajna at 6.00 p.m. on 10th October, 1987 and case was registered for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. Bhoori Singh was admitted in the hospital but Ram Dayal succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of this report, First Information Report No. 28/87 was taken down at Police Station Garhi Bajna at 6.00 p.m. on 10th October, 1987 and case was registered for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that on 9th October, 1987, when the injured Bhoori Singh and Ram Dayal were taken to Hospital at Bharatpur, Ram Dayal succumbed to the injuries, the Doctor in-charge of the Hospital informed the Police out post, Mathuragate Bharatpur and A.S.I. in-charge of the Police Station, Shri Sahib Singh, P.W. 10 immediately rushed to the Hospital and prepared an inquest memo in the presence of the Panches. He prepared a Panchayatnama (inquest memo) Ex.P. 14 and, thereafter, got the post mortem conducted by the Medico Legal Officer, in charge of General Hospital, Bharatpur at 5.30 p.m. on 9th October, 1987 itself. He thereafter handed over the dead body to the relations for disposal and sent the inquest memo along with all necessary documents to Police Station Garhi Bajna. 4. It may further be necessary to mention here that Sahib Singh had also seized blood stained clothes of the deceased and some other materials which he also had forwarded alongwith the inquest memo and Tehrir, he received from the Doctor to Station House Officer, Police Station Garhi Bajna. P.W.12 Raghuveer Singh, who was carrying on the investigation and after completion the same, submitted a charge-sheet against as many as nine accused persons namely Siya, Lakhan, Suresh, Ramesh, Ganpat, Durga, Girdhar, Banni and Lachcha. All of them were committed to the court of Sessions where various charges were read over to them to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the occurrence in the manner as alleged and did not produce any evidence, in defence. The learned trial court acquitted Girdhar, Lachcha and Banni of all the charges but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above vide its judgement dated 31st July, 1991 against which this appeal has been preferred. 5. We need not narrate the detailed arguments in this judgement as we are disposing of this appeal on a very short point which goes to the root of the case. 6. 5. We need not narrate the detailed arguments in this judgement as we are disposing of this appeal on a very short point which goes to the root of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants had raised one of the arguments that the investigation in this case had been most unsatisfactory and from the very beginning embroideries have been done and original record had been deliberately suppressed, and the combined effect of all this is that accused have been severely prejudiced. According to him, the father of the deceased Ummed along with Pyare had gone to Bharatpur with the injured and in their presence the inquest report was prepared. The corpse was also handed over to them after post-mortem. Their statements were recorded by Sahib Singh, who in turn had forwarded these statements along with other documents to Police Station Garhi Bajna but surprisingly the said statement did not find part of record and even when the Investigating Officer was asked in cross-examination , he was not prepared to offer any explanation about the same. It was, therefore, contended that on 9th October, 1987, when the statements of the eye-witnesses i.e. the father of the deceased were recorded he must have disclosed the entire names of the accused and the manner in which the incident had taken place and since some offence would have been disclosed, the First Information Report ought to have been recorded on the same day and that report should have been forwarded to the Police Station Garhi Bajna but for reasons best known neither the report nor the statements have been placed on record much less their whereabouts are also not known. 7. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the appellants finds support from the statement of P.W. 10 Sahib Singh himself, who, in his cross-examination admitted that the document regarding the recovery of clothes is not in the same condition in which he had sealed it and further that he was informed that Ram Dayal had sustained injuries because of a criminal incident. When questioned about the statements of the witnesses he answered that he does not know as to where the statements of Ummed and Pyare which he recorded have gone. He was unable to say anything. They are torn out from the record as the inquest memo and inquest report are on record or not he does not know. When questioned about the statements of the witnesses he answered that he does not know as to where the statements of Ummed and Pyare which he recorded have gone. He was unable to say anything. They are torn out from the record as the inquest memo and inquest report are on record or not he does not know. He stated that he had sent the entire documents along with the inquest report. After referring to the record he said that these statements are not on record now. He, however, said that he had gone through the entire record but the statements, which he recorded are not traceable. He, however, stated that they may be available in the case diary but he could not show there also. He showed his ignorance as to who has removed the statements of Ummed and Pyare. He does not know about it. He, however, later on stated that the relatives of the accused or other panchas did not tell him as to when and by whom, the injuries were caused on Ram Dayal. He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately removed the documents in order to falsely implicate a number of persons in the case. 8. P.W.12, Raghuveer Singh, who was S.H.O. Police Station Gadhiwajna and to whom the documents were forwarded stated that on 10th October, 1987 he had gone to village Tarsuma in respect of another case FIR No. 26/87 where Ramesh had filed a FIR who is also an accused in the FIR No. 28/87 and it was in Tarsuma village that a report was given to him by Mooli Ram. He denied the suggestion that in fact Mooli Ram had gone to the Police Station to lodge the report. In cross-examination, he had admitted that according to Ex.P.14, inquest report, in column No. 7 Sahib Singh, A.S.I. had written that he had recorded statements of Ummed and Pyare but these statements are not available in his file. He has showed his ignorance as to where these documents have gone. He has even said that he does not know as to whether Sahib Singh had forwarded the same or not. He has denied the suggestion that there were some witnesses also besides these two according to the statements of Ummed and Pyare. 9. He has showed his ignorance as to where these documents have gone. He has even said that he does not know as to whether Sahib Singh had forwarded the same or not. He has denied the suggestion that there were some witnesses also besides these two according to the statements of Ummed and Pyare. 9. Mooli P.W. 1 has in his statement stated that the report was lodged by him at the Police Station and not at Tarsuma and he was categorically denied the fact of his going to Tarsuma to hand over the report to the Station House Officer, Raghuveer Singh. 10. In view of the fact that a serious controversy has been raised about the dis-appearance of the statements of Ummed and Pyare, we asked the learned Public Prosecutor to place the case diary before us to satisfy ourselves as to whether some statements have been recorded or not. We find it from the diary that statements of Ummed and Pyare were recorded by P.W. 10 Sahib Singh. According to the First Information Report, Ex.P. 18 both Ummed and Pyare were eye-witnesses of the occurrence and, therefore, their statements were very material. 11. According to the first information report (Ex.P. 18) Ummed and Pyare, both were eye witnesses of the occurrence. They have been examined in the Court also. In this view of the matter, their presence at the time when inquest report was prepared assumes importance and their statements which were recorded by .Sahib Singh (P.W. 10) become material evidence in the case. In fact, any statement made by them in connection with the occurrence, it should have been the first information report in the case which could be duly recorded on 9th October, 1987 at 4.20 p.m. instead (Ex.P. 18) which was recorded on 10th October, 1987 at 1.00 p.m. Legally speaking also if first information report (Ex.P. 18) dated 10th October, 1987, is considered as a first information report then the proceedings drawn in respect of recovery of clothes etc. all become inadmissible in evidence being hit by provisions of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, it was obligatory upon the prosecution to have made available the statements of Ummed and Pyare to the Court and the worst part is that they do not disclose the truth which had been suppressed for the reasons best known. At what stage it has been done can only be a matter of enquiry by the higher authorities of the police department, if they intend to do so. But in this case, we are unable to place reliance on the prosecution evidence for want of sanctity attached to the fair investigation. 12. Besides this, we may also observe that in this case, medical evidence does not corroborate the statements of the eye witnesses. P.W. 11, Dr. G.K. Mathur, who conducted the post mortem examination stated that the deceased had sustained the following injuries which are as under:- 1. Oblique lacerated wound 6cm x 1cm x 1cm on the left occipito parietal region scalp 4cm above left car. 2. Bruise swelling oblique 12cm x 2x m epigastric region to Rt. Hypochordrium and extended up to Rt. renal area. 3. Bruise 3cm x 2cm left side of chest vessels below left nipple. 4. Bruise oblique 5cm x 2cm on left iliac region. 5. Oblique bruise 8cm x 2cm middle portion of left thigh ante side. 6. Lacerated wound with swelling 3cm x 1cm x l/2cm anterior and middle portion of left leg (skin). 7. Fracture of left parietal bone and presence of subdural haematoma in left parietal region. According to him the cause of death was injury caused on head and liver. He died because of shock due to profuse bleeding. According to him all the injuries cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death. He however, clarified in the cross- examination that injury No. 1 was caused by lathi and categorically stated that it was not caused by pharsa. He reiterated that this injury cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon like Pharsa. According to medical evidence, none of the injuries sustained by the deceased or for that of Bhoori Singh, were caused by blunt object while all the eye witnesses have categorically stated that the injury on the head was caused by sharp edged weapon.(sic) The witnesses have given a parrot like statement and attributed the injuries on the person of the deceased by sharp edged weapon which is directly negatived by the medical evidence on record. In this view of the matter, we need not go into other questions raised which make the case further doubtful. We, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the accused appellants. 13. In this view of the matter, we need not go into other questions raised which make the case further doubtful. We, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the accused appellants. 13. Before parting with this case we would like to observe that we have acquitted the accused only on the ground of unfair investigation as this Court while delivering the judgement keeps in mind the proverbial dictum of the Supreme Court that there is long distance to travel between `may be true' and `must be true' and when the police officer started lying and suppressing the material evidence the accused cannot be punished. But at the same time it requires a serious inquiry to be made on administrative side against the officers concerned with the case who prevent the Court from arriving at a just conclusion on the merits of the case. Unfair investigation not only shakes the faith of the people in police but also in the entire system of the judiciary as the illiterate and innocent villagers do not know as to whether and at what stage the mischief has been committed. Lest a tendency may go on increasing in order to make an attempt to prevent the evil of perjury, unfair investigation and working of the reports, we intend to sound a note of warning to all those Investigating Officers who are lastly developing the practice of removing material documents from the case diaries and thereby indirectly help the accused. The copy of the judgement shall be forwarded to the I.G.P. (Crimes), Jaipur for information and necessary action. 14. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence as passed against accused appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. 15. Accused appellant Siya son of Banni and Suresh son of Hari Singh are in jail and they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Accused Lakhan, Ramesh, Ganpat and Durga are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds and the same are discharged. *******