JUDGMENT 1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner has convicted the appellants Mani Ram and Dhura Ram for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and has sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to under go further imprisonment of three months each. Aggrieved, both of them have come in appeal. 2. The prosecution story is that on 20th February, 1984, PW I Kheraj Ram, PW 2 Nanu Ram, PW 6 Pat Ram and deceased Govind Ram had gone from their village Jegla to the field of Pat Ram for collecting grass. They had taken a camel cart with them. They reached the field of Pat Ram at about 7.30 in the morning and collected bundles of grass in the camel cart. At about 10 a.m. all the four persons started back for the village. PW 1 Kheraj was leading the camel cart while PW 2 Nanu Ram, PW 6 Pat Ram and deceased Govind Ram were following the camel cart. The prosecution story is that when this party reached near the field of one Sadasukh, 8 accused persons namely Dhura Ram, Mani Ram, Krishna Ram, Shankar Lal, Ramdhan, Lekh Ram, Brij Lal and Hanuman came there. Mani Ram, Kishna Ram, Dhura Ram and Lekh Ram were armed with 'Selas' while the rest of the accused persons were armed with 'Barchis'. The accused party was shouting MARO MARO. All the accused persons came near Govind Ram and first of all Mani Ram gave a 'sela' blow on the abdomen of Govind Ram hitting him on the right side. Thereafter. Dhura Ram dealt another 'sela blow on the left side of the chest of Govind Ram. Thereafter, all the accused persons surrounded Govind Ram; Govind Ram had fallen to the ground in the meanwhile. The prosecution story is that Kheraj Ram, Patram and Nanuram tried to intervene but Lekhram gave a 'sela' blow on the right hand of Kheraj, Nanu Ram and Patram ran away from the scene of occurrence and Kheraj also ran away to some distance. The prosecution story is that after beating Govind Ram, all the accused persons ran away towards their village. 3. The prosecution story is that PW 6 Patram straight away went to Police Station, Nokha where he lodged an oral report of the occurrence. The prosecution story is that after beating Govind Ram, all the accused persons ran away towards their village. 3. The prosecution story is that PW 6 Patram straight away went to Police Station, Nokha where he lodged an oral report of the occurrence. PW 8 Sarjeet Singh entered the report as Ex. P. 9 in daily Rojnamcha'. He, however, did not record any formal FIR. He procured the services of a photographer and went to village 'Jegla'. He reached village 'Jegla' about 3.30 p.m. lie first of all went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the same and, thereafter, proceeded to the house of PW 1 Kherajram and recorded his statement Ex. D-2. Thereafter, Sarjeet Singh went back to the scene of the occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. P-1 and legend thereof Ex.P-1(A). This is said to have been done in the presence of alleged eye-witness Kherajram, Nanuram on 20-2-84 itself. 4. The prosecution story is that while Patram had gone Police Station, Nokha to lodge the report, Kheraj and Shanker Lal went to the village. Kherajram accompanied with Shankerlal, Prahlad and Hazari went to the scene of occurrence alongwith a camel cart. They lifted Govind Rain from the scene of occurrence and placed him in the camel cart. The prosecution story is that when these people reached the scene of occurrence Govind Ram was still conscious. Shankerlal enquired from him as to who had assaulted him, upon which Govindram told him that all the 8 accused persons named above had assualted him. Prosecution story is that Kherajram and Shanker Lal and his companions started with Govind Ram in the camel cart for Deshnokh via village 'Jegla' for treatment. They had gone a distance of about one 'kos' when Govind Ram expired. Upon this, Pat Ram and his companions brought the dead body to village Jegla and placed the same at the house of Hazari Ram. The prosecution story, further, is that the investigating officer Sarjeet Singh recovered blood stained soil and soil from the scene of occurrence and duly sealed the same and he prepared Ex.P-4 in this regard. He prepared inquest memo namely Ex.P-3. From the scene of occurrence, he recovered one pair of shoes belonging to the deceased and duly sealed them and prepared Ex.P-6. He got the dead body photographed. Thereafter, he proceeded to the police station where he recorded formal FIR Ex.P-22. He prepared inquest memo namely Ex.P-3. From the scene of occurrence, he recovered one pair of shoes belonging to the deceased and duly sealed them and prepared Ex.P-6. He got the dead body photographed. Thereafter, he proceeded to the police station where he recorded formal FIR Ex.P-22. 5. Thereafter, Sarjeet Singh, arranged for post mortem examination of the deceased Govind Rain. This post mortem examination was conducted by PW-5 Dr. Shyam Khatri on 21-2-84. The post mortem report showed two stab wounds, one on the right side of the chest near the 8th Intercostal space and the second on the right side of the abdomen. Beside these wounds as many as 7 injuries caused by blunt weapon were also noticed at the time of examination. Dr. Shyam Khatri detected fracture of the 8th and 9th ribs on the right side. On internal examination, he found that left lung was conjested and the right lung has collapsed and was full of blood and the small intestine had a cut measuring about 3 c.m. Liver had two cuts on it. According to Dr. Shyam Khatri the deceased died due to excessive bleeding from the liver causing syncope. According to him the deceased might have died 20 to 48 hours before the post mortem examination. He prepared Ex. P-9 in this regard.It appears that on 20-2-84 at about 11 p.m. Dr. Shyam Khatri also examined prosecution witness Kherajram and found on stab wound on his right hand measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. He prepared injury report Ex. P-10 in this regard. An X-ray examination was also made, but no fracture was found and hence the injury on the body of the Kheraj Ram was found to be simple. 6. It appears that three 'Selas' were recovered one each from Dhura Ram, Maniram and Lekhram. They were duly sealed vide Ex. P-7. Site plan Ex. P-8 was prepared with regard to the place from which selas had been recovered. It appears that some of the articles recovered during the course of investigation were sent to F.S L., Jaipur, from where a report Ex P 29 was received. Upon such investigation the investigating officer filed challan against accused persons Lekhram, Dhuraram and Maniram for offence under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. It appears that some of the articles recovered during the course of investigation were sent to F.S L., Jaipur, from where a report Ex P 29 was received. Upon such investigation the investigating officer filed challan against accused persons Lekhram, Dhuraram and Maniram for offence under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. It may be stated that the investigating officer did not believe the prosecution witnesses regarding complicity of all the 8 accused persons and hence no challan was filed against rest of the accused persons. Learned Committing Magistrate also did not deem it proper to take cognizance against such accused persons who had not been challenged. He, however, committed the accused Dhura Ram, Mani Ram and Lekhram to the Court of Sessions to take trial for offence under section 302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner framed due charges against all the three accused persons. The accused persons pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined PW 1 Kherajram, PW 2 Nanu Ram, PW 8 Shankerlal, PW 4 Dhuraram, PW 5 Dr. Shyam Khatri, PW 6 Patram, PW 7 Sri Krishan, PW 8 Sarjeet Singh and PW 9 Kanti Prakash Purohit in support of its case. The statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr. PC. All the three accused denied the prosecution story and also denied their complicity in the incident. According to them they had been falsely implicated. DW 1 Mamraj and DW 2 Annaram were examined by them in defence. 8. Learned Trial Court by his Judgment dated 30-11-89 acquitted the accused Lekhram altogether. He, however, found Maniram and Dhura Ram guilty of offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them as stated above. Aggrieved, they have come to this Court. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned public prosecutor for the State and Shri Vijay Bishnoi on behalf of the complainant. Before we proceed to discuss the contentions raised before us, we may take note of certain salient features of this case. As stated above, the prosecution story is that as many as 8 accused persons had assaulted the deceased. 4 accused persons were armed with 'selas' and 4 were armed with 'Barehis'. Before we proceed to discuss the contentions raised before us, we may take note of certain salient features of this case. As stated above, the prosecution story is that as many as 8 accused persons had assaulted the deceased. 4 accused persons were armed with 'selas' and 4 were armed with 'Barehis'. Neither the police nor the learned committing Magistrate nor the learned trial court found this story to be reliable and hence the result was that only three persons were put for trial of them Lekhram too was acquitted. 10. The Trial Court found that the alleged eye-witnesses namely Kheraj, Patram, Nanuram bore enmity towards the accused appellants due to previous litigation. He also found that all these three alleged eye-witnesses were related to the deceased and were related to each other also; he further found that prosecution failed to prove that Lekhram had caused any injury to Kheraj as alleged. He further, found that the prosecution story that deceased had made the dying declaration before Shanker Lal was also unreliable. However, he found that the prosecution story was acceptable so far the present appellant Dhuraram and Maniram were concerned. He found that Dhuraram and Maniram had stabbed the deceased with 'sela' causing him injuries Nos. 1 and 2 and thus voluntarily caused his death. Upon such findings, he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. 11. The above narration goes to show that the alleged eye-witnesses in this case are enimical with the accused appellants and their testimony has to be read with care and caution. Learned Public Prosecutor and lerrned counsel for the complainant were at pains to argue that the learned trial court has tried to disengage truth from false hood and this Court should also try to do the same and should upheld the conviction of the appellants on the said evidence. 12. The basic sub-stratum of the prosecution story is that while the deceased alongwith Kherajram, Nanuram and Patram were returning from field of Nanuram, the deceased was way laid on the passage between the field of Sadusukh and Javanaram on the outskirt of village Jegla by as many as eight persons welding sharp edged weapons. The investigating officer claimed to have recovered blood stained soil from the scene of occurrence but the report of FSL does not disclose any blood on the soil recovered from the scene of occurrence. The investigating officer claimed to have recovered blood stained soil from the scene of occurrence but the report of FSL does not disclose any blood on the soil recovered from the scene of occurrence. This fact belies the prosecution story that the incident had occurred on the passage between the fileds of Sadusukh and Javanaram. 13. The prosecution case is that when the deceased Govind Ram was alive, he had been placed in the camel cart and an attempt was made to take him to village Deshnokh for his treatment. Actually, he is said to have been taken for a distance of three kilo-meters and it was then that Govind Ram expired The Medical evidence goes to show that Govind Ram must have bleed profusely from the two injuries received by him. This must have left its tell-tale marks on the surface of the camel cart. It must have also left tell-tale marks on the wearing apparel of Kheraj and others who had lifted Govind Ram. Thus, their wearing apparel must have been stained with blood. However, we find no reliable evidence coming forth to show that any blood stains were found on the camel cart or on the wearing apparel of Kheraj and his companions who had bodily lifted Govind Ram and had put him in the camel cart. Sarjeet Singh had categorically stated that he did not discover any blood on the camel cart. He has stated that for this reason he did not take the camel cart in his possession and also did not prepare any memo with regard to inspection of the camel cart. This fact goes to show that the prosecution story that Govind Ram had been put in the camel cart and had been taken for a distance of 3 k.m. is unreliable and is not worthy of credence 14. The testimony of Dr. Shyam Khatri goes to show that the deceased had died about 24 to 48 hours before the examination made by Dr. Shyam Khatri. This would mean that the deceased could have died any time between 19 February 1984 and 20 February, 1984. The possibility that Govind Ram might have been assaulted at some other place and at some other time and his dead body had been taken to the village after his close relations learnt of his death, cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of the case. 15. The possibility that Govind Ram might have been assaulted at some other place and at some other time and his dead body had been taken to the village after his close relations learnt of his death, cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of the case. 15. As already stated above Dr. Shyam Khatri has found as many as 10 injuries on the person of the deceased. Out of these injuries, only two injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon the other injuries had been caused by blunt objects. None of the prosecution witnesses explains the blunt-weapon's injuries found on the body of the deceased and this fact goes to dis-credit the testimony of Kherajram, Nanuram and Patram that they had really witnessed the incident. Had they really witnessed the incident, they could have shown as to how the deceased received various blunt object injuries. Thus, their testimony is not corroborated by medical evidence at all. 16. If these three witnesses would have really witnessed the incident. then they would have raised alarm. We may state that according to the prosecution, incident had taken place between the fields of Sadasukh and Javanaram. The witnesses do not claim that they had raised any alarm whatsoever. Had they raised any alarm or had the incident taken place at the place alleged by the prosecution witnesses, persons living in the inhabited Dhani of Sadasukh would have been definitely attracted to the scene of occurrence. This conduct of witnesses also creates doubt about the veracity of their version. 17. The prosecution story is that the deceased along with Kheraj, Nanuram and Patram had gone that day earlier to collect grass from the field of Patram. Actually this is the basic sub-stratum of the prosecution story. This alone could explain why all these witnesses happened to accompany the deceased. There is a material variance between the testimony of eye witnesses on the basic fact as to what they had collected from the field of Patram. Actually this is the basic sub-stratum of the prosecution story. This alone could explain why all these witnesses happened to accompany the deceased. There is a material variance between the testimony of eye witnesses on the basic fact as to what they had collected from the field of Patram. According to Kherajram thorn wood have been collected by them from the field of Patram, he states that : " ge esjs xkM+h esa irjke ds ?kj ds fy, irjke ds [ksr ij dkWaVksa ds <+sjs ysus ds fy;s x;s FksA oks <+sjs tks ge yk;s Fks] geus vius ?kj Mkys Fks] irjke ds ?kj ugha Mkys FksA " PW 2 Nanuram in his examination in chief gives a lie to this story and states : " eSa xksfoUnjke] irjke] [ksjkt] xkao ls irjke ds [ksr esa ?kkl ysus ds fy;s jokuk gq, FksA " The discrepancy in this respect, though minor, goes to discredit the prosecution story that the witnesses had gone in company of Govindram for a particular purpose to the field of Patram and were returning back after collecting bundles of grass or bundle of thorn wood. 18. There is one more important aspect which needs to be mentioned viz. that deceased, Kheraj, Patram and Nanuram had gone to the field of Patram armed with 'jaiees' which are sticks with long iron spikes. When it is so, it is surprising that the assault was made on Govindram but none of them tried to repel the attack by use of 'jaiees'. This conduct also makes their story suspect. 19. We may state that the investigation in this case had not been very fair. The Investigating Officer did not record any formal FIR even though he claims to have recorded information regarding the incident in the 'Rojnamcha' marked as Ex. 9-A. We summoned Sarjeet Singh before us to explain his lapse of this score but he was unable to explain why he failed to register a formal FIR on the basis of Ex. P 9-A even though he claims to have received this information on 20-2-84 itself. We would not have attached great importance to this fact, but we find that conduct of Sarjeet Singh is even otherwise not above board, Sarjeet Singh has admitted that after recording the Ex. P 9-A he went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the scene of occurrence. We would not have attached great importance to this fact, but we find that conduct of Sarjeet Singh is even otherwise not above board, Sarjeet Singh has admitted that after recording the Ex. P 9-A he went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the scene of occurrence. It does not appear that he recorded any memo of this inspection made by him. He has admitted that after inspecting scene of occurrence, he went to village Jegla and recorded the statement of Kherajram at his house itself. This statement, which has been made the basis of the formal, FIR was not despatched expeditiously to the police station for recording the formal FIR. He claims to have carried on further investigation of the case without ensuring that a formal FIR is recorded. It was after a preliminary investigation in village Jegla at the scene of occurrence, that he proceeded back to Police Station where he eventually lodged the formal FIR of the case. This conduct of Sarjeet Singh is baffling and goes to show that the investigation has not been fair. Sarjeet Singh claims to have prepared the site plan Ex. P 1 and Ex. P 1 A in the presence of Patram, Kherajram and Nanuram. He has not mentioned in these documents particular places or spot from where these witnesses had seen the incident. In Ex. P 1-A he has referred to spot 'C' where blood had deposited on the soil. We have already shown that the soil collected from the spot does not show any human blood in it at all. This also makes his story suspect.Ex. P-2 is said to have been prepared at the spot the same day but as pointed out earlier the formal FIR had been recorded that day, after Sarjeet Singh had reached the Police Station. Yet Ex. P 1, Ex, P 1-A, Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 3 find mention of the FIR number and the offence for which the FIR had been recorded. This goes to show that the various documents were prepared after the FIR had been formally registered and not earlier. This conduct on the part of the Investigating Officer discredits the investigation altogether. 20. We may here mention that Investigating Officer who took over the investigation from Sarjeet Singh viz. This goes to show that the various documents were prepared after the FIR had been formally registered and not earlier. This conduct on the part of the Investigating Officer discredits the investigation altogether. 20. We may here mention that Investigating Officer who took over the investigation from Sarjeet Singh viz. PW 9 Kanti Prasad claims to have recovered 'selas' at the instance of the accused persons who were arrested in this case. The 'selas' were not shown to the Medical Officer when he was examined to establish that the stab wounds on the person of Govindram could have been caused by these 'selas'. There is no report from the FSL with regard to these 'selas' so that the 'selas' may be connected in any way with this incident. 21. The medical evidence goes to show that the two stab wounds on the person of the deceased. Govind Ram could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon which had a sharp blade at lease 10-11 c.m. in length and with both edges very sharp. Recovery memo Ex.P-7 does not indicate if the blades of 'selas' were sharp to that extent. Of course it does mention that the blades of 'selas' carried some blood, we have already dealt with this aspect viz that the report of the FSL does not indicate that these weapons were sent to it or any blood had been found on them. 22. We agree with learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that court should try to disengage truth from false-hood. However, if the truth is inextricably mixed with false hood, then this court would not enter into such a venture at all because it would be hazardous. 23. In the present case we find that the testimony of the eye witnesses is at material variance with the medical evidence and a large number of blunt objects injuries caused to the deceased have remained unexplained. The alleged eye-witnesses bear inimical relationship with the accused appellants and are related to each other as also the deceased. Enimity is a double edged weapon. On one hand, it furnishes motive for committing crime but on the other hand it equally furnishes motive for false implication of innocent persons. The alleged eye-witnesses bear inimical relationship with the accused appellants and are related to each other as also the deceased. Enimity is a double edged weapon. On one hand, it furnishes motive for committing crime but on the other hand it equally furnishes motive for false implication of innocent persons. In the present case the police itself did not believe the prosecution story that the deceased had been assaulted by as many as 8 persons named by the prosecution witnesses An attempt was also made to show that Kheraj was a eye witness in as much as he has received infury during this particular incident but this part of the story was found to be untrue. The aforesaid circumstances creates a good deal of doubt about the truth fullness of the prosecution story. In our opinion it would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the accused appellants for offence under section 302 IPC. 24. No other contention has been raised before us. 25. In view of the submissions made above, we accept the appeal, set aside the Judgment of Learned Trial Court as also the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentence recorded at this count and acquit them of the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. The accused appellants are in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******