JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by Ramchandra, Jeeve Lai and Nandu is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas in Sessions Case No.37/ 92, whereby Ram Chandra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, 323 and 341 IPC and appellants Jeeve Lai and Nandu have been convicted under Section 302 and 341 IPC. For offence under Section 302/34, appellant Ram Chandra has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and has been directed to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine has been directed to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Likewise appellants Jeeve Lai and Nandu have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For offence under Section 323 and 341 each one of the appellants have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, Ramchandra, Jeeve Lai and Nandu have filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that accused-appellant were in unlawful possession of agricultural land allotted to the family of Radhakrishan P.W.1 and Bharat Singh P.W.2 who are related to each other. On 19th March, 1992an altercation took place between appellant Jeeve Lai and Vijay. However, Jeeve Lai and Vijay were pacified and were sent to their homes. The same day at about 9.30 p.m., P.W.1 Radhakrishan P.W.2 Bharat Singh and Vijay left village Azizpur to take meals for Shanker Singh at the field at the outskirts of village Azizpur. As soon as Radhakrishan, Bharat Singh and Vijay reached the public square of the village, appellants Ram Chandra, Jeeve Lai and Nandu came there from behind. Jeeve Lai was armed with an axe, Nandu was armed with a Pharsi while Ram Chandra was armed with a lathi. All the three opened assault upon Vijay. jeeve Lai gave an axe blow on the right side of the chest of Vijay, Nandu gave a Pharsi blow on the head of Vijay from behind while Ram Chandra first gave a lathi blow to Rad hakrishan and then gave another lathi blow to Vijay. Bharat Singh was also assaulted by a lathi by Ram Chandra. Vijay fell down on the spot and he was taken away to the village on a cot. 3. Bharat Singh was also assaulted by a lathi by Ram Chandra. Vijay fell down on the spot and he was taken away to the village on a cot. 3. The prosecution story is that no means of transportation was available that night and hence Radhakrishan went to Police Station, Khairthal which is at a distance of 12 kilometers next morning i.e. on 20th March, 1992. He lodged a written report at 8.00 a.m. on 20th March, 1992 with Om Prakash Sharma P.W.15. Shri Om Prakash Sharma recorded a formal F.I.R. Ex.P.2 the same day and registered a case for offence under Section 302, 323 and 341 IPC. Om Prakash went to the site on 20th of March, 1992 and inspected the site and prepared the Site Inspection Memo Ex.P.4. He also examined the deadbody and prepared Inquest Memo Ex.P.13. Om Prakash collected blood stained soil and sample of fresh soil from the spot vide Memo Ex.P.14 and P.15 and duly sealed them. He, thereafter arranged for post-mortem of Vijay Lai. The postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.12, Dr. Dhanesh Kumar Sharma on 20th March, 1992 at 12.00 noon. He found following injuries on the person of Vijay: 1. "Incised wound, Spindle shaped, vertical 5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on posterior half of right parietal region of scalp. 2. Bruise with abrasion. Contusion with abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm behind left ear. 3. Penetrating wound 7 cm x 3 cm x cavity deep on the right side of chest just below clavicle, wound vertical with sharp clearcut edges, angles are deep upto thorasic cavity." 4. According to Dr. Dhanesh Kumar all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and on opening the body he found that membranes of the brain were congested, however, there was no fracture of the bones of the skull. There were fractures of first and second ribs on the front side and the pleura of the right lung had been pierced. The right thorasic cavity was full of blood and right lung was congested. The major blood vessels on the right side of the chest had been cut and the heart was empty. According to Dr. Dhanesh Kumar deceased Vijay had died due to anaemia, resulting from excessive haemorrhage from penetrating wound in the thorasic cavity within 12-24 hours of the post-mortem examination. The major blood vessels on the right side of the chest had been cut and the heart was empty. According to Dr. Dhanesh Kumar deceased Vijay had died due to anaemia, resulting from excessive haemorrhage from penetrating wound in the thorasic cavity within 12-24 hours of the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem Report Ex.P.17 was prepared in this regard. 5. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of various witnesses and the appellants were eventually arrested and an axe was recovered at the instance of Jeeve Lai, a lathi was recovered at the instance of Ramchandra and a Pharsi was recovered at the instance of Nandu Lai. The recovered weapons were duly sealed and Memo Ex.P.7 was prepared in respect of lathi, recovered at the instance of Ramchandra, memo Ex.P.8 was prepared in respect of the axe recovered at the instance of Jeeve Lai and Ex. P.9 was prepared in respect of the Pharsi recovered at the instance of Nandu Lai. It does not appear that any report from FSL was received in respect of these weapons. After completion of the formalities of the investigation, the appellants were challaned before learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas who duly committed them to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Kishangarh Bas. The learned Trial Judge framed due charges against the accused appellants. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of the prosecution story. The accused persons denied their complicity in the crime in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and it was stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. 6. The learned Trial Judge has relied upon the testimony of P.W.1 Radhakrishan and P.W.2 Bharat Singh and has held that the appellants had assaulted Vijay in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He consequently found the appellants guilty as above. It may be stated that P.W.3 Ramsingh and P.W.4 Jagdish Singh were also examined as alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence but they did not support the case of the prosecution. 7. In the present appeal, Shri Bajwa submits that the prosecution case has not been established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and it appears that deceased Vijay might have been assaulted unseen by anybody and the present appellants have been implicated falsely on account of previous enmity and hence they deserve to be acquitted. 8. 7. In the present appeal, Shri Bajwa submits that the prosecution case has not been established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and it appears that deceased Vijay might have been assaulted unseen by anybody and the present appellants have been implicated falsely on account of previous enmity and hence they deserve to be acquitted. 8. Learned P.P. while supporting the decision of the learned Court below has urged that the testimony of Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh is quite reliable and deserves to be accepted. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record. It is an admitted position that there is previous enmity between the parties. Admittedly appellant accused have been in possession of agricultural land which P.W.1 Radhakrishan and P.W.2 Bharat Singh alleged that it belongs to them. 9. The curious feature of this case is that according to Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh an altercation had taken place on 19th March, 1992 which sparked of this incident. Strangely enough according to P.W.1 Radhakrishan this altercation took place at 7.00 a.m. i.e. to say in the morning. As against this Bharat Singh claims that this altercation between Vijay and Jeeve Lai took place at 7.00 p.m. i.e. 7.00 in the evening. Both the witnesses have categorically stated about their respective claims. No independent eyewitnesses regarding this alleged altercation prior to the incident have been produced. The testimony of the two witnesses Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh is wholly contrary to each other and it is difficult to believe their averments that prior to this incident, an altercation had taken place between Vijay and Jeeve Lai which led to this murderous assault on Vijay. 10. According to the prosecution after the assault was over the deceased Vijay was taken to his home from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 Radhakrishan wanted the Court to believe that that a cot was brought and dead body of Vijay was taken soon after the occurrence to the house on such a cot. According to PW.2 Bharat Singh also, the deadbody was taken soon after the occurrence. Surprisingly no cot was recovered to corroborate this testimony of P.W.1 Radhakrishan and P.W.2 Bharat Singh. On the contrary P.W.1 I Agha Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that he alongwith Radhakrishan, Bharat, Ram Singh and Jagdish had taken Vijay in an injured condition to Khairthal. On the way at village Mataur one Dr. Surprisingly no cot was recovered to corroborate this testimony of P.W.1 Radhakrishan and P.W.2 Bharat Singh. On the contrary P.W.1 I Agha Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that he alongwith Radhakrishan, Bharat, Ram Singh and Jagdish had taken Vijay in an injured condition to Khairthal. On the way at village Mataur one Dr. Pawan had examined Vijay and had stated that Vijay had died. Upon this dead body of Vijay was taken to Azizpirr. This statement of Agha Chand had not been challenged by the learned P.P. of the Court below and gives a story contrary to that given by Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh which makes their story highly unreliable that they had seen the assault and had taken Vijay in an injured condition to his home on a cot. 11. Our conclusion in this regard is reinforced by the fact that medical testimony does not corroborate the versions given by Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh. We may state that the fatal blow which is said to have been caused by an axe has been described as a penetrating wound which was 7 cm x 3 cm x cavity Keep with clearcut margins. Dr. Dhanesh Kumar ham admitted that such a penetrating wound coul\be caused only by a pointed weapon. The axe with, which Vijay is said to have been assaulted was not shown to the doctor. If Vijay had received a netrating wound, it would be caused only by a sharp pointed weapon. Thus the claim of Radhashan and Bharat Singh that they saw the occurrence becomes highly unreliable and unworthy of the pleadings. 12. The matter does not rest here. According to 'Agha Chand, Vijay was being taken to Khairthal and on way to Khairthal at village Mataur Vijay breathed his last. It does not appear that any steps were taken on the night of 19th March, 192 to lodge a report with the police regarding this incident. The report was lodged next day after a good deal of delay which shows that the prosecution has not come out with a spontaneous version of the incident. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has candidly conceded that an oral report of the incident had been made to the Police Officer but thereafter some consultations were made and then a written report was lodged. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has candidly conceded that an oral report of the incident had been made to the Police Officer but thereafter some consultations were made and then a written report was lodged. It passes our comprehension why the SHO did not record the oral information supplied to him and why Bharat Singh and his companions were permitted to hold consultations and then a written report was lodged. This also makes prosecution story unreliable and unworthy of pleadings. 13. It is true that Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh have given parrot-like statements regarding this assault but their stories cannot be believed in view of the infirmities which we have already pointed out and particularly in view of the fact that the medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh. 14. Admittedly Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh are witnesses who were having previous enmity with the appellants. They are thus partisan witnesses and the testimony of one partisan witness cannot be corroborated or confirmed by evidence of another partisan witness. 15. The conduct of Radhak rishan and Bharat Singh in this case militates against their presence at the spot. It is surprising that the appellants stopped after assaulting Vijay and did not assault Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh at all and thus gave them an opportunity of becoming witnesses for sending the appellants to the gallows. 16. We may state that Radhakrishan claims to have received injuries during the course of alleged assault but there is no medical evidence forthcoming in support of the case. It appears that the injury report was placed on the record as Ex.P.3 but Dr. Dhanesh Kumar was not asked to prove the same. This is highly surprising. In case Dr. Dhanesh Kumar Sharma had really examined Radhakrishan and had found injuries on his person, Dr. Dhanesh Kumar should have been asked to prove the injury report. 17. We may state that the appellants had no grudge against Vijay or against Radhakrishan or Bharat Singh, they were admittedly in peaceful possession of the agricultural land belonging to Radhakrishan and party, for over a period of 15 years. Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh have admitted that there was no litigation with regard to this agricultural land. If so there was absolutely no reason why the appellants should have attacked Vijay. 18. Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh have admitted that there was no litigation with regard to this agricultural land. If so there was absolutely no reason why the appellants should have attacked Vijay. 18. The prosecution should have led cogent and reliable evidence to show in what condition and how Vijay was taken from the scene of occurrence to his house where his dead body was found. The evidence on this aspect of the case consisting of testimony of witnesses Radhakrishan, Bharat Singh and Agha Chand is highly discrepant and it does not stick. This also renders the testimony of Radhakrishan and Bharat Singh unreliable when they claim that they were present at the scene of occurrence and were responsible for taking Vijay to his home. 19. No other point was urged before us. 20. In view of what we have said above, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court and also set aside the conviction recorded by him against the appellants as also the sentences passed by him. All the accused-appellants are acquitted of all the charges of which they were found guilty by the learned Trial Judge. Jeeve Lal is said to be behind the bars, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The other two appellants, Ramchandra and Nandu are said to be on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. AUGUST8 Appeal allowed. *******