JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 27, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident, which had to the prosecution and conviction of accused Channa Ram, took place on August 3, 1988, at about 8.00 p.m. in village 9 T.K. near the shop of Suresh Agrawal, where Chhagan Lal was murdered by Chanan Ram and Gurucharan Singh. The report of this incident was lodged on the same day at about 11.30 p.m. at Police Station, Raisinghnagar by Jeet Singh (P.W. 1) the father of the deceased Chhagan Lal. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that Smt. Surjeet Kaur W/o Sohan Singh had gone to the shop of Suresh Agrawal for bringing tea, Gur etc. Chhagan Lal was sitting inside tea shop and Chanan Ram and his brother Gurucharan Singh were hiding themselves out side the shop. At that time, Chanan Ram was armed with a Kulhari. At about 8.00 p.m., Suresh Chandra Agrawal closed his shop and he and Chhangan Lal both came out of the shop. Gurucharan Singh caught hold of Chhagan Lal and asked Chanan Ram to kill him, whereupon Chanan Ram inflicted Kulhari blow on the head of Chhagan Lal, which penetrated into his skull and Chhagan Lal fell down on the ground. Dayal and certain other villagers came there after hearing the noise, upon which Chanan Ram and Gurucharan Singh ran away. Chhagan Lal was brought to his house by Surjeet Kaur and her husband Sohan Singh. This incident was narrated by Surjeet Kaur to Jeet Singh when he returned to his village. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against accused Chanan Ram only and discharged the accused Gurucharan Singh as no case was found against him. Accused Chanan Ram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar, for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seventeen witnesses and placed reliance over twenty-one documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and looking to the young age of the appellant, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and looking to the young age of the appellant, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. It is against this judgment dated August 27, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rais inghnagar, that the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution consists of P.W. 3 Darshan Singh, P.W. 4 Man Singh, P.W. 5 Dayal Singh, P.W. 6 Mangal Singh, P.W. 12 Surjeet Kaur and P.W. 13 Kala Singh the eye witnesses of the occurrence. This evidence of the eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W. Jeet Singh the father of the deceased Chhagan Lal, who lodged the First Information Report and in whose presence, Ex. P-2 site plan, Ex. P-2-A Haalat Moka, Ex. P-3 Furd Surat Hall Lash and Ex. P-4 Punchnama were prepared and the recoveries of the plain soil Ex. P-5, blood-stained soil etc. from the place of the occurrence vide Ex. P-6, blood-stained clothes Ex. P-7, were prepared. P.W.2 Kripa Ram is the witness who went with Jeet Singh to lodge the report. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W. 11 Sohan Singh is the brother of the deceased, who went at the place of the occurrence after the incident was over and who brought his deceased brother Chhagan Lal to the house. P.W. 14 Kashmir Singh and P.W. 15 Hanuman Ram are the two Motbir witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution to prove the arrest of the accused vide Ex. P. 16 and the recovery of the Shirt and Baniyan of the accused vide Ex. P-17. These two witnesses have also, not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W. 9 Hari Chand is the another witness of the recovery of the Kulhari, which was recovered from his possession on October 27, 1988, vide recovery memo Ex. P. 14. P.W. 8 Dr. Manmohan Singh Bhatia is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of deceased Chhagan Lal and found fifteen injuries on his person. Out of these fifteen injuries, three were cut wounds, nine were abrasions and three were contusions. P. 14. P.W. 8 Dr. Manmohan Singh Bhatia is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of deceased Chhagan Lal and found fifteen injuries on his person. Out of these fifteen injuries, three were cut wounds, nine were abrasions and three were contusions. P.W. 7 Nathu Ram is the Foot Constable, who took the articles for F.S.L. examination to Jaipur. P.W. 10 Chandra Prakash is the Head Constable, with whom the investigating Officer Ramsukh Meena and P.W. 16 Rajendra Singh, S.H.O., deposited the articles in the sealed condition and with whom the articles remained in the same condition as were handed-over to him. P.W. 16 is Rajendra Singh, S.H.O., who registered the F.I.R. (Ex. P.1), went at the site, prepared the site plan Ex. P-2, Haalat Moka Ex. P-2 A, Furd Surat Haal lash Ex. P.3, and Panchnama Ex. P.4 and recovered the plain soil vide Ex. P.5, blood-stained soil vide Ex. P.6 and recorded the statements of Kripa Ram, and Jeet Singh. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of Baniyan and under-wear of the deceased, which were recovered vide Ex. P-7 by P.W. 17 Ramphool Meena. P.W. 17 Ramphool Meena is the C.I., who took the investigation from P.W. 16 Rajendra Singh, conducted the same and presented the challan against accused Chanan Ram. He did not find any case against accused Gurucharan Singh and, therefore, no challan was presented against accused Gurucharan Singh. 4. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimony of three eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 4 Man Singh, P.W. 12 Surjeet Kaur and P.W. 13 Kala Singh, which is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 11 Sohan Singh the brother of the deceased and P.W. 1 Jeet Singh the father of the deceased and by the medical evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Manmohan Singh Bhatia. The prosecution has, also, relied-upon certain recoveries of the blood-stained clothes of the accused as well as the blood-stained Kulhari, which is said to have been recovered at the in stance and on the information supplied by the accused. P.W. 4 Man Singh has stated that on the fateful night, at about 8.00/8.15 p.m. he was sitting in the Chowk near the shop of Suresh Agrawal and they were in the lying-position. P.W. 4 Man Singh has stated that on the fateful night, at about 8.00/8.15 p.m. he was sitting in the Chowk near the shop of Suresh Agrawal and they were in the lying-position. They heard the noise of Pritam Kaur "Naa Maaro Naa Maaro Chhoron" upon which he saw accused Chanan Ram inflicted Kulhari injury on the head of Chhagan Lal and thereafter he along with other persons went away. The sister-in-law of the deceased Chhagan Lal came there and took Chhagan Lal to the house. In the cross-examination, he has stated that it was a moonlit night and, therefore, he identified the accused and the accused went towards the Western side after infliction of the injury. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that only one injury by Kulhari was inflicted by accused Chanan Ram to deceased Chhagan Lal and there was only one person who gave beating to Chhagan Lal. He has, also, admitted that Pritam Kaur came at the place of the occurrence and she is the grand-mother of deceased Chhagan Lal. She was more close to the place of the incident than us. After that, Dayal Singh went to the house of Chhagan Lal to give information. They did not take any steps to take care of the injured. He has admitted the presence of himself, the deceased, the accused, Surjeet Kaur and Pritam Kaur and has admitted that no other person was there. 5. P.W. 12 Surjeet Kaur the other eye witness of the occurrence - has stated that on the fateful night, at about 7.00/8.00 p.m., she went to the shop of Suresh Agrawal for taking tea, gur etc. When she reached near the Chabutara of Gunsai, she saw accused Chanan Ram inflicting Kulhari injury to deceased Chhagan Lal. At that time, Man Singh, Kala Singh, Dayal, Singh and some other persons were, also, sitting there. She returned to h r house after seeing this incident. Dayal Singh went to their house to inform her husband. In the way her husband met him and she and her husband took Chhagan Lal to their house. Chhagan Lal had four/five injuries on his person. Thereafter her father-in-law P.W. I Jeet Singh came there. At that time, Chhagan Lal was dead. Chhagan Lal was murdered by accused Chanan Ram on account of some dispute regarding the wine. In the way her husband met him and she and her husband took Chhagan Lal to their house. Chhagan Lal had four/five injuries on his person. Thereafter her father-in-law P.W. I Jeet Singh came there. At that time, Chhagan Lal was dead. Chhagan Lal was murdered by accused Chanan Ram on account of some dispute regarding the wine. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that nobody tried to rescue Chhagan Lal. She has, also, admitted that she, also, did not try to rescue Chhagan Lal. She has, also, admitted that after Chanan Ram ran away, no care of Chhagan Lal was taken by her, Kala Singh, Man Singh or Dayal Singh. She has, also, admitted that when she reached near the Chabutara, Chhagan Lal was not inside the shop of Suresh Agrawal. The quarrel took place out-side the shop of Suresh Agrawal. Pritam Kaur was standing in front of her house. The house, of Pritam Kaur is adjacent to the place of the incident and Pritam Kaur was standing at the distance of five-six paces. She narrated the whole story to her father-in-law Ject Singh when he returned after about half an hour of the incident. She has, however, denied the story given by Jeet Singh in the First Information Report and has stated that she never narrated this story to her father-in-law. 6. P.W. 13 Kala Singh is the third eye witnesses of the incident, who was sitting at the Chabutara of Gunsai on the fateful night. He stated that at about 8.00 p.m., he asked Darshan Singh, to bring some cigarettes and at that time Darshan Singh, Man Singh and Mangal Singh were sitting along with him on that Chabutara. Pritam Kaur raised an alarm forboding the accused to kill Chhagan Lal. After sometime, Chanan Ram inflicted injury on the head of Chhagan Lal. After receiving the injury, Chhagan Lal fell down on the ground. Thereafter Sohan Singh's wife came there and after seeing the incident, she returned to her house. Dayal Singh went to the house of Sohan Singh to inform him that Chanan Ram has killed Chhagan Lal Thereafter Sohan Singh and his wife, both came there and took Chhagan Lal to their house. He showed his ignorance regarding the motive. Thereafter Sohan Singh's wife came there and after seeing the incident, she returned to her house. Dayal Singh went to the house of Sohan Singh to inform him that Chanan Ram has killed Chhagan Lal Thereafter Sohan Singh and his wife, both came there and took Chhagan Lal to their house. He showed his ignorance regarding the motive. In the cross- examination, he has stated that Surjeet Kaur reached there before Chhagan Lal fell down and he and other four persons remained sitting at the Chabutara till Chhagan Lal was taken to his house by Sohan Singh and Smt. Surjeet Kaur and these witnesses did not try to intervene. They even did not try to intervene even when Pritam Kaur raised an alarm. He has further admitted that even after Chanan Ram ran away, he and other witnesses, who were sitting at the Chabutara, did not give any assistance to Chhagan Lal He has admitted that Chanan Ram alone inflicted one injury on the person of deceased Chhagan Lal. He has admitted that Suresh was, also, there when the incident took place and Suresh was standing out-side his shop while he and other three persons were sitting on the Chabutara. Suresh's wife standing out side his shop was asking "do not kill.... do not kill." 7. This evidence of the eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 11 Sohan Singh the brother of the deceased, who, on the information given by Dayal Singh, went to the place of the occurrence and took Chhagan Lal to his house. This witness has not seen the occurrence. He only went to the place of the occurrence and brought his brother Chhagan Lal to his house after receiving the information from Dayal Singh. The another witness is P.W. 1 Jeet Singh the father of the deceased who lodged the First Information Report on the information supplied by his brother-in-law. He is, also, not an eye witnesses. P.W. 2 Kripa Ram is the witness, who went with P.W. 1 Jeet Singh for lodging the report. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. All the three eye witnesses, who have not been declared hostile and on which the prosecution has placed reliance, are unanimous on the point that they saw accused Chanan Ram inflicting injury on the person of the deceased Chhagan Lal. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. All the three eye witnesses, who have not been declared hostile and on which the prosecution has placed reliance, are unanimous on the point that they saw accused Chanan Ram inflicting injury on the person of the deceased Chhagan Lal. These witnesses have seen the accused inflicting injury by Kulhari and according to their version, the accused inflicted only one Kulhari injury on the head of Chhagan Lal, while the deceased Chhagan Lal, as per the post-mortem report and as per the statement of P.W. 8 Dr. Manmohan Singh Bhatia, had received fifteen injuries. Out of these fifteen injuries, three were cut wounds by sharp-edged weapon, nine were abrasions and three were contusions, which, according to the doctor, can be caused by the blunt object. The doctor, in his statement, has admitted that all the fifteen injuries, cannot be caused by one weapon. He has, also specifically stated that looking to the size of the injuries, the weapon of offence should have a blade between 15 to 20 centimetres. The blade of the Kulhari recovered in the present case, is of 41/2" only and, therefore, these injuries could not have been caused by this Kulhari. Moreover, the deceased had fifteen injuries on his person. Three cut wound by sharp-edged weapon, nine abrasions and three contusions were found, while as per the prosecution case, the accused inflicted only one injury and, therefore, the evidence of these eye witnesses does not find corroboration from the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, which raises a suspicion in the veracity of the statement of these three eye witnesses. No prosecution witness has stated that the accused repeated the blow. The conduct of these witnesses, also, raises a suspicion about their presence at the scene of the occurrence and their's seeing the incident. If they would have been present there, some efforts should have been made by these witnesses to rescue the deceased from the hands of the accused. If these witnesses would have been present there, the deceased would not have received so many injuries as have been found on the person of deceased Chhagan Lal. All the witnesses have admitted that they did not try to intervene. In the cross-examination, they have even admitted that even after the accused went away, they did not go near the deceased. All the witnesses have admitted that they did not try to intervene. In the cross-examination, they have even admitted that even after the accused went away, they did not go near the deceased. The conduct of these witnesses, thus, raises a suspicion in their statements. Moreover, as per the prosecution, Pritam Kaur was the witness, who first saw the occurrence and raised an alarm "do not kill the boy" but Pritam Kaur was not produced by the prosecution. Even it has been admitted that she was the grand-mother of the deceased. The non-production of this material witness, also,.raises a suspicion in the prosecution case. 8. The next evidence, on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution, is the recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the accused and the recovery of the Kulhari at the instance and on the information supplied by the accused. So far as the blood-stained clothes and the recovery of the Kulhari are concerned, though they were found to be positive for human-blood but the origin of the blood could not be given as the blood was disintegrated and, therefore, it cannot be said that the blood found on the clothes of the accused was of the same origin as that of the deceased and hence the presence of the human blood on the clothes of the accused is of no help to the prosecution. Now, so far as the recovery of the Kulhari the weapon of the offence is concerned, as per the chemical report, it was found to be positive for human-blood, but the origin of the blood could not be given as the blood on the blade of the Kulhari was disintegrated. Further-more, P.W. 9 Hari Chand has stated that the Kulhari was recovered on the next date of the occurrence, i.e., on 24th August, 1988. P.W. 1 Jeet Singh has admitted that the accused was sitting at the Police Station when he went to lodge the report. Though this witness P.W. 9 Hari Chand has stated regarding the recovery of the Kulhari on that date but Ex. P-14 shows that the recovery of tie Kulhari was made on 27.10.1988. P.W. 17 Ramphool Meena,' who is the Investigating Officer, has stated that the recovery of the Kulhari was made on 27.10.1988 from the house of the accused in the presence of P.W. 9 Hari Chand and Sarwan Singh vide Ex. P-14 shows that the recovery of tie Kulhari was made on 27.10.1988. P.W. 17 Ramphool Meena,' who is the Investigating Officer, has stated that the recovery of the Kulhari was made on 27.10.1988 from the house of the accused in the presence of P.W. 9 Hari Chand and Sarwan Singh vide Ex. P-14 from the Kotha of the accused situated in 9 T.K. This recovery was made on the basis of the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 26.10.1988, which is Ex. P-18. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that the Kotha, from where the recovery of the Kulhari was made, was open and was accessible to all. No lock was put out-side the house. The other family members of the accused used to reside in that Kotha, but at the time when the recovery was made, nobody was present in the house and the house was not locked and it was found open. This recovery, thus, cannot be said to be made from the possession and at the instance of the accused. Further-more, the recovery is of no help to the prosecution because the origin of the blood on the Kulhari is not known. Moreover, the injuries, which have been received by the deceased Chhagan Lal could not have been caused by this Kulhari. P.W. 8 Dr. Manmohan Singh Bhatia has specifically stated that so far as these three cut wound, which were received by Chhagan Lal, are concerned, those can be caused by a sharp-edged weapon which must have a blade of 15 to 20 ems. while the Kulhari, recovered in this case, had a blade of only 41/2", i.e., 111/2 cm. Thus, by this Kulhari, the injuries found on the person of the deceased could not have been caused. These recoveries, thus, made at the in stance of the accused, do not connect him with the crime. 9. There is no other evidence on record, produced by the prosecution, which may connect the accused with the crime and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable matter of doubt. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant Chanan Ram is allowed. 9. There is no other evidence on record, produced by the prosecution, which may connect the accused with the crime and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable matter of doubt. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant Chanan Ram is allowed. The judgment dated August 27, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, is, therefore, set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is in jail. He should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******