JUDGMENT 1. - Accused appellant Rampal has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, vide his judgment dated 10.11.1990, under section 302 IPC and has been sentenced for the said offence to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. The case relates to the alleged murder of one Lalchand. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 12.30 noon on 18.5.88, Lalchand was sleeping inside his house. Accused-appellant Rampal along with one Satyaveer came there. Satyaveer caught hold of Lalchand by leg and accused-appellant Rampal gave a blow by his knife which caused injury on the abdomen of Lalchand, on account of which Lalchand died. The accused-appellant along with his companion Satya Veer made his escape good. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by PW 2 Phool Singh and PW5 Guddu @ Jitendra. The report of the incident was lodged by PW 2 Phool Singh at the Police Station Mandhan, where a case was registered under section 302 IPC. 3. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner and so far as the other accused person mentioned in the FIR i.e. Satya Veer is concerned, the police found the case against him to be false and no charge-sheet was filed against him. The case was committed and an application was filed under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge to take cognizance against Satya Veer but the said application was also dismissed. In other words, the trial proceeded against the present accused-appellant and the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. 4. The plea of the accused-appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. was of bare denial and therefore, he came out with the case that he is a student. He was aged 19-21 years and that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of party factions. He did not examine any witness in defence. 5. 4. The plea of the accused-appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. was of bare denial and therefore, he came out with the case that he is a student. He was aged 19-21 years and that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of party factions. He did not examine any witness in defence. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in assailing the judgment of the Trial Court has contended that the occurrence does not appear to have taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, because no blood was found at the place where the occurrence is said to have taken place and looking to the nature of the injury, blood must have oozed out from the wound and there should have been blood at the spot. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contends that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. According to the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant when the case put forward by the prosecution was not found to he correct, rather was found to be false, so far as the accused Satya Veer is concerned and even after investigation, no charge-sheet was filed against him, the statements of the witnesses should not be relied upon even so far as the appellant Rampal is concerned. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute and there cannot be any dispute and no dispute can be raised, that Lalchand died as a result of injuries caused to him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is no reason to place reliance on the statements of the two witnesses that the accused appellant is the author of the fatal injury and therefore, the case will not be covered u /Sec. 302 IPC but will be covered under section 304-I IPC. 7. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as four eye witnesses were examined i.e. PW-2 Phool Singh, PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari, PW-5 Guddu @ Jitendra and PW-9 Santosh. The Trial Court has not placed reliance on the statements of PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari and PW-9 Santosh but has placed reliance on the testimony of PW- 2 Phool Singh and PW-5 Jitendra and on the basis of their testimony, the learned Court has convicted the accused-appellant. The Trial Court has not placed reliance on the statements of PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari and PW-9 Santosh but has placed reliance on the testimony of PW- 2 Phool Singh and PW-5 Jitendra and on the basis of their testimony, the learned Court has convicted the accused-appellant. After having gone through the statements of PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari and PW-9 Santosh, we are in agreement with the Trial Court that they had not witnessed the occurrence. The Trial Court has given reasons for holding that they did not witness the occurrence and one of the reasons is that their names were not mentioned in the FIR and the other is that they were examined a few days after the occurrence and at least the prosecution has not explained their delayed examination. We are therefore, left with the statement of two witnesses PW2 Phool Singh and PW5 Guddu @ Jitendra. 8. PW-2 Phool Singh is the author of the FIR (Ex.P-13). He did not immediately lodge the report but it appears that he had taken the injured deceased Lalchand to the Hospital at Narnaul and when the police had reached there, then the Parcha Bayan of Lalchand was recorded, which is FIR of the case. It would be seen from Ex.P-13 that Phool Singh came out with the case that he had actually seen the accused appellant inflicting the injury with knife to deceased Lai Chand. He has also stated therein that he had seen Satya Veer holding the deceased by his neck. While being examined in the Court, he said that he had seen Satya Veer holding the deceased Lai Chand by his shoulder. Not only this, when he as confronted with the police statement Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.2 he could not explain the conflict. In his police statement Ex.D.2 he came out with the case that he had not seen Satya Veer holding the deceased at all and that in the FIR as well as in his earlier statement, he had wrongly stated that Satya Narain was holding the deceased by his neck. In his police statement Ex.D.2 he came out with the case that he had not seen Satya Veer holding the deceased at all and that in the FIR as well as in his earlier statement, he had wrongly stated that Satya Narain was holding the deceased by his neck. Not only this, in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.13) as well as in his Court statement he has said that he actually seen the accused appellant giving blow by his knife to the deceased but in his statement (Ex.D.2) the second statement recorded by the Police during investigation, he has said that he has not actually seen the accused-appellant giving blow by knife but he had seen the accused armed with knife, stained with blood. When he was confronted with this omission, which amounts to material contradiction, from his statement Ex.D.2, he could not explain the same and said that he did not say so. It can therefore be said that PW-2 Phool Singh has given different statements at different stages and has made improvements. Therefore, he can not be said to be a witness of sterling worth and he cannot be said to have actually witnessed the occurrence and to have seen the accused-appellant giving knife blow to the deceased. Not only, it would be further seen that though in the FIR, he did not name the two witnesses PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari and PW-9 Santosh as having seen the occurrence or having been attracted there but in his statement in the Court, he said that they were also present at the time of the occurrence and had seen the accused. He therefore introduced two persons as eye witnesses. This is also an infirmity in his statement. 9. Coming to the Statement of Guddu @ Jitendra (PW-5). It would be seen that he is said to be sleeping along with the deceased and was brother-in-law (SALA) of the deceased. He had actually not witnessed the accused giving blow by knife but he states that he saw the accused taking out the knife from the chest of the deceased. He therefore actually did not see the occurrence. He has also made improvements in his police statement. 10. There appears to be no motive for the commission of the crime, though the prosecution has come out with the motive that about three months back, some minor incident had taken place. He therefore actually did not see the occurrence. He has also made improvements in his police statement. 10. There appears to be no motive for the commission of the crime, though the prosecution has come out with the motive that about three months back, some minor incident had taken place. It has come in the statement of PW- 2 Phool Singh that about three months prior to the occurrence, a male child had born to one Rajendra S/o Netram and then Ramswaroop, Satya Veer and Rampal were also there and one Chiranjilal had said that he will call his brother Surajbhan and his sons on which Rampal, Satyaveer and Ram Swaroop had told that in case Surajbhan and his sons were called, then they will not come and there will be unnecessary quarrel. Then Chiranjilal had called them and there was some exchange of words. Rampal came armed with a lathi and Lalchand slept Rampal, as a result of that enemity the present incident had taken place. It does not appear that any report with regard to the aforesaid incident was filed. It also does not appeal to us that there could have been any motive for the commission of offence like murder of Lalchand. 11. We are therefore unable to place reliance on the testimony of Phool Singh (PW-2) and Guddu @Jitendra (PW-5). 12. It may also be said that the police also did not find any blood at the place of the occurrence. Looking to the nature of the injury, we are of the opinion that there must have been blood, oozed from the wound and there must have been some blood present. It has come in the statement of Dr. Subhash (PW-10) that the names of the assailants were not disclosed to him, though it had been said by Guddu @ Jitendra (PW-5) that he had disclosed the names of the accused persons also to the doctor. This is also a lacuna in the present case that the names of the assailants were not disclosed to the doctor. 13. Consequently, we are unable to place reliance on the above named two witnesses and they do not appear to be witnesses of the category of wholly reliable witnesses. 14. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 10.11.1989 of the Addl. 13. Consequently, we are unable to place reliance on the above named two witnesses and they do not appear to be witnesses of the category of wholly reliable witnesses. 14. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 10.11.1989 of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar and acquit the accused-appellant Ram Pal of the charge under section 302 IPC. The sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court are set aside. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. AUGUST8 Appeal allowed. *******