JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 26.6-1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirobi, whereby he convicted appellant Deepa for the offence under section 302 IPC and appellants Lalia and Netia for the offences under section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each one of them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to further under go six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that PW 1 Chopa lodged an oral report on 20.6-191.5 at 5.30 p.m. at police Station, Rohida, wherein be informed that on the same day in the noon when he bad gone to the house of Khuma Gameti Bheel resident of Mota Khetar for some domestic work, he found Khuma sitting besides a cot under the mango tree and that on the cot Kbuma's son Ratia was lying dead with injuries on his bead, right hand and back. Be further informed that as per version of Khuma, on the same day at about 11.00 a.m. when Ratia was returning to his house and reached near the house of Kewla, appellants Lalia, Deepa and Netia along with Babu belaboured him with lathis and stones, that on bearing the alarm raised by Ratia. he (Khuma), Bheria, Josh, Bhoja and Ratia's daughter Kumari Tipu had reached there from their houses and that thereupon the afore-mentioned accused persons had fled away. Khuma also informed Chopa that thereafter be had brought Ratia, who was lying unconscious, to his house, where be died. On this information, FIR Ex. P. 10 was scribed and a case under section 302 IPC was registered The Investigation Officer after inspecting the site prepared the site plan and the autopsy report of Ratia. Be also seized Ratia's blood-stained shirt and dhoti. Appellant Deepa was arrested en 23.61985 and in pursuance to his information dated 24.6-1585 Ex. P. ]4 got one lath recovered from his house vide recovery memo Ex. P. 15. PW 6 Dr. K.L. Bafra, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Ratia, found a lacerated wound on the right parietal region causing fracture of the right parietal bone. haematoma 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the left temporal region, contusion 3 cm x cm on the right scapular region and another contusion on the left infra scapular region. K.L. Bafra, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Ratia, found a lacerated wound on the right parietal region causing fracture of the right parietal bone. haematoma 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the left temporal region, contusion 3 cm x cm on the right scapular region and another contusion on the left infra scapular region. The doctor opined that the cause of death of Ratia was due to injury and hemorrhage. After usual investigation the police filed the challan against the present appellants only, in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate. Abu Road, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants refuted 1.l e indictment levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded under section 313 Cr. PC denied all the circumstances appearing against them and asserted that they have been falsely implicated. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner detailed ad ultra. Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri M.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri D.R. Bohra, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. 4. Shri M.K. Garg has vehemently contended that except PW 2 Khuma, all other alleged eye-witnesses namely PW 3 Kumari Tipu, PW 4 Joshi and PW 5 Bhena have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge has held that PW 2 Khuma had reached on the place of occurrence after Kumari Tipu and other witnesses and that he could not see the alleged incident from his house. Shri Garg has submitted that the statements of all these prosecution witnesses are inconsistent, contradictory and untrustworthy and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in relying on their testimony. Shri Garg has argued that it is a clear case of false implication because in the FIR the name of Babu was also mentioned as an assailant, which on investigation, was found to be false and as such no charge-sheet was filed against him. He has argued that there is not an iota of evidence to hold that the appellants are guilty for the murder of Ratia. 5. He has argued that there is not an iota of evidence to hold that the appellants are guilty for the murder of Ratia. 5. On the other hand, Shri D.R. Bohra has reiterated the reasoning's given by the learned trial Judge and tried his best to support the impugned judgment. 6. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions The fact um of homicidal death of Ratia is not in dispute. This fact also stands well established by the testimony of PW 6 Dr. K.L. Bafna who has proved the postmortem examination report as also by the statements of other witnesses. 7. In the FIR, Ex. P/10, no specific overt act of any of the appellants has been mentioned. The learned Sessions Judge has held that PW 3 Kumari Tipu was the first person to have arrived at the scene of occurrence and that Khuma bad come there much later PW 3 Kumari Tipu aged 18 years. who is the daughter of deceased Ratia, has stated that at the time of alleged occurrence she was going to fetch water, that appellants Lelia and Deeps, inflicted lathi blows on Ratia and that appellant Netia burled stones towards him. that thereupon Ratia fell down and that there-after also injuries were inflicted to him. She has stated that on her raising alarm, Bberia Joshi, Bhoja and Khuma had come there. However, in her crass-examination she has specifically admitted that Kewla and his wife Smt. Sundari had also witnessed the said incident, but the investigation officer has neither included the names of these two witnesses in the calendar of witnesses nor they have been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has deliberately with held these independent and material witnesses and this fact raises a strong suspicion about the prosecution story. 8. Kumari Tipu admitted that Bhoja, Joshi, Bhera and Khuma had arrived on the scene of occurrence much after she had reached there. She also admitted that her brother Bhoja had gone to call her grand-father Khuma and that thereafter Khuma had come there. She further admitted that when she reached the place of occurrence, Ratia was lying down and was not in apposition to speak She further admitted that at that time Joshi, Bhoja and Khuma were at a distance of one field on the western side and that from there the place of occurrence was not visible. She further admitted that when she reached the place of occurrence, Ratia was lying down and was not in apposition to speak She further admitted that at that time Joshi, Bhoja and Khuma were at a distance of one field on the western side and that from there the place of occurrence was not visible. She has clearly admitted that when she reached near the place of occurrence, she had seen the appellants running away about a distance of half field and that she had not seen any of the appellants inflicting injuries to Ratia. Thus, Kumari Tipu was not an eye-witness. After her cross, examination, she was declared hostile. Even .in her cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor, she insisted that it was wrong to suggest that Joshi, Khuma and other witnesses bad leeched the place of occurrence along with her simultaneously. She also deposed that she did not see any lathi in the hands of appellants Lalia and Netia and that only appellant Deepa was armed with a lathi. She told that Deepa had inflicted a lathi blow on Ratia, while appellants Lalia had thrown stones to. wards him. She stated that Lalia had inflicted stone injury on the buttock of her father, but this fact does not find corroboration from the medical evidence, because no such injury was noticed by the doctor as per postmortem examination report Ex. P/9. It is, therefore, abundantly apparent that the statement of Kumari Tipu is self-contradictory, inconsistent and untrustworthy. 9. PW 4 Joshi stated that on the alarm raised by Kumari Tipu he rushed to the place of occurrence, which was near the house of Kewla and that he had seen appellant Deepa inflicting a lathi blow on Ratia. He did not implicate other appellants. This witness was also declared hostile. He has disowned portions A to B, C to D and E to F of his police statement Ex, P. 7. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Bhoja had come there five minutes after he had reached the place of occurrence and that Khuma had come there after twenty minutes. He stated that appellant Lalia inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Ratia while appellant Deepa dealt a lathi blow on his neck and back and that Netia had thrown a stone. Thus, he has given an entirely different version about the alleged incident. He stated that appellant Lalia inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Ratia while appellant Deepa dealt a lathi blow on his neck and back and that Netia had thrown a stone. Thus, he has given an entirely different version about the alleged incident. Moreover his statement is also self-contradictory. He is a wholly unreliable witness. 10. PW 5 Bheria stated that appellant Deepa and Lalia had inflicted lathi blows to Ratia, but he has not stated that as to which of the appellants inflicted injury on which part of the Ratia. Thus, he was also declared hostile. He has disowned portions A to B. C to D and E to F of bis police statement Ex. P/8. This witness is therefore reliable wit-ness. 11. PW 2 Khuma has claimed that he had reached the spot first of all and that thereafter Kumari Tipu and other witnesses had come there, but as per the testimony of other witnesses, Khuma had reached the place of occurrence much after the incident. As per the version of Kumari Tipu, he could not have seen the incident from his house, which was situated at a distance of about one field. The learned trial Judge has also disbelieved the statement of this witness. Titus, the statements of all the alleged eye-witnesses are replete with material contradictions of Himalayan magnitude and inconsistent & untrustworthy. The initial version about the incident as set out in the FIR or in the police statements of those witnesses does not stand proved from the testimony of these witnesses. Hence in our considered opinion the learned Sessions Judge has not correctly discussed, scanned and evaluated the testimony of these witnesses. his findings are perverse and against the record and as such he has committed an illegality in holding the appellants guilty for the offence under sections 302 & :02 read with 34 1PC. 12. Hence in our considered opinion the learned Sessions Judge has not correctly discussed, scanned and evaluated the testimony of these witnesses. his findings are perverse and against the record and as such he has committed an illegality in holding the appellants guilty for the offence under sections 302 & :02 read with 34 1PC. 12. It is needless to mention that there has always been a golden thread in the web of Criminal Jurisprudence twat to ensure the conviction of an accused person, the prosecution must adduce clear, cogent and convincing evidence and must bring home the guilt of its hilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has given a go bye to this well established principle of appreciation of evidence and has committed an illegality in misreading the evidence and in convicting the appellants. 13. The lathi alleged to have been recovered at the instance of appellant Deepa was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and as per the FSL report no blood was found there on due to disintegration and as such the origin of the blood could not be deter.- mined. Therefore, the alleged recovery of the lathi also does not incriminate appellant Deepa with the crime. 14. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the offence under section 302 IPC against appellant Deepa and the offence under section 302 read with 34 1PC against appellants Lalia and Netia and as such their conviction and sentence pasted by the learned Sessions Judge can not be sustained. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against appellant Deepa under section 302 1PC and against appellants Lalia & Netia under section 302 read with 34 IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. Appellant Deepa, who is in Jail be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Appellants Lalia and Netia are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******