Jaspal Singh, J. ( 1 ) THE incident is of 26/05/1974, and the judgment underappeal of 22/09/1975. The wait for this final culmination must have been an ordeal in itself. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story is set in village Bawana. The day, as already noticedabove, was May 26 in the year 1974. The time about 4 p. m. The main characters arekumari Shantey, her brother Brahm Parkash, sister Kamlesh and mother Bhagwanibesides of course the appellant Jote Ram who is projected before us as the villain. It so happened that on the fateful day noted above, while Shantey, Kamlesh andbrahm Parkash were returning home with their buffalo, Jote Ram abused them. Thechildren narrated the incident to their mother who lost no time in lodging protestwith him. One would have expected the things to cool down. Instead the tempersran high and we are told that Jote Ram, a neighbour otherwise, went on to the rooftop of his house and started hurling bricks at the family. One such brick hit Shantey leaving her unconscious. While she was being rushed to the hospital her father Risalsingh met them on the way and on being told about the incident, rushed to thepolice Station. The next day saw the recording of the statement of Bhagwani whichled to registration and consequent prosecution of Jote Ram under Section 308 of theindian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge lost hardly any time in concludingthe trial and pronouncing Jote Ram guilty. Aggrieved, he preferred this appeal. Wehave taken almost 20 years for its disposal. ( 4 ) SHANTEY, a female child of 6 years of age did enter the witness box but thelearned trial Judge did not examine her as he, on putting her some questions, cameto the conclusion that she was not "in a position to understand the questions put toher much less the sanctity of oath". Her father Risal Singh was also not examined. He could not possibly be. He was dead by that time. Of course, the prosecution didexamine Bhagwani (PW2), Brahm Parkash (PW5) and Kamlesh (PW6) and onepyare Lal (PW9) as eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. Two other-personsnamely Ganeshi (PW4) and Siri Chand (PW7) also need to be noticed as they claimto have reached the spot soon after the occurrence. ( 5 ) TRUE, the eye witnesses do repeat the prosecution version, and the learnedsessions Judge has believed them. Two other-personsnamely Ganeshi (PW4) and Siri Chand (PW7) also need to be noticed as they claimto have reached the spot soon after the occurrence. ( 5 ) TRUE, the eye witnesses do repeat the prosecution version, and the learnedsessions Judge has believed them. However, I do tend to agree with the learnedcounsel for the appellant that despite parrot-like repetition of the prosecutionversion, the witnesses do leave big question-marks and fail to inspire, what we call,the confidence of the Court. Let me, very briefly, proceed to show how. ( 6 ) LET me first deal with the question as to where the occurrence allegedly tookplace and its significance in the context of the merits of the prosecution version. Iam doing so as I do consider it to be of considerable importance. Well, Bhagwaniis not very specific about it though it does appear from her statement that she wasoutside her house when she herself was hit by a brickbat. Public Witness 5 Brahm Parkash ishowever certain. He says Shantey was hit while she was in the street. Public Witness 6kamlesh says nothing about the spot. However, she does make a significantstatement. As per her the brick was thrown at her brother but it hit Shantey. Asalready noticed, the brother (Brahm Parkash) claims to be standing in the street. Itmay thus be assumed that Shantey too, at that time, was standing in the street. Inany case Pyare Lal (PW9) is sure. He says that Shantey was in the eight feets widestreet when she was hit by a brickbat. Now, if brickbats were thrown while theywere standing in the street and if Shantey and Bhagwani were hit in the street, howis it that the next day the police found the brickbats not in the street but well insidethe house of Shantey? The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer too showsthat bricks were lying inside the house. Inanimate things do not move by themselves. Who took them inside the house and why? ( 7 ) BHAGWANI tells us that besides Shantey, she too was hit by a brickbat thrownby the appellant and that she too had become unconscious and had regainedconsciousness only after 1 hours. Her son Brahm Parkash (PW-5) lends herversion a full throated support. He says that her mother was still unconscious whenshe was put in a taxi alongwith Shantey. So far so good. Her son Brahm Parkash (PW-5) lends herversion a full throated support. He says that her mother was still unconscious whenshe was put in a taxi alongwith Shantey. So far so good. However, unfortunatelyfor the prosecution there is no medical evidence to support it. To add to prosecution s misery, Bhagwani s own daughter Kamlesh (PW-6) belies the version. Shecategorically states that besides Shantey no other person was hurt. And to add toit all, Shri Chand and Pyare Lal who took Shantey to hospital also falsify Bhagwani sclaim. ( 8 ) BHAGWANI also tells us that at about 7 or 8 p. m. while Shantey was beingtaken to the hospital her husband Risal Singh had met her on the way and it wasthen that the entire incident was narrated to him. She thus clearly rules out thepresence of her husband at the place of occurrence. However, the statement ofbrahm Parkash would go to show that soon after Shantey having been hit, Risalsingh had also reached the place of occurrence and that he was very much presentthere when Shantey was taken to the hospital. Kamlesh (PW-6) is however, morespecific. She clearly says that her father Risal Singh had reached home at 6 p. m. andthat at that time her mother was still in the house. This still is not the end of thematter. While Bhagwani has stated that it was Shri Chand (PW7) who had askedrisal Singh to rush to the Police Station, as per Shri Chand, Risal Singh did not meethim at all on the day of occurrence. ( 9 ) TO make the confusion worse confounded, Pyare Lal (PW9) who also claims to be an eye witness states that the brick which had hit Shantey was thrown by theappellant "from near his staircase" and that only one brick had been thrown. Asper Kamlesh (PW6) and Brahm Parkash (PW5), the appellant had thrown brickbatsfrom the roof of his house. While as per Brahm Parkash the brickbats so thrownwere three in number, Ganeshi (PW-4) gives their number as six. However, as perbhagwani the entire incident took place while she and the appellant were standingoutside their respective houses meaning thereby that bricks were thrown by theappellant while he was still outside his house. And as if all this was not enough, shetells us that when she regained consciousness she noticed no brick or brickbat lyingat the place of occurrence. However, as perbhagwani the entire incident took place while she and the appellant were standingoutside their respective houses meaning thereby that bricks were thrown by theappellant while he was still outside his house. And as if all this was not enough, shetells us that when she regained consciousness she noticed no brick or brickbat lyingat the place of occurrence. Interestingly the site plan Ex. Public Witness 11 /c prepared by theinvestigating Officer ASI Dharam Singh (PW11) does not show the place ofoccurrence. It merely shows that brickbats were picked up from inside thecourtyard of the house of Bhagwani. And, it may also be mentioned that althoughas per Ganeshi (PW4) blood was lying inside the Courtyard, the Investigatingofficer tells us that besides "brickbats" he had not found "anything there. ( 10 ) A word or two more. It is admitted by Bhagwani that her husband Risalsingh was having litigation with the appellant. The evidence has to be examinedand analysed keeping this fact in mind. Ofcourse, enmity provides a motive for thehurt caused but it may also provide a cause for false implication. The alleged eyewitnesses are none other but the mother, sisters and brother of the alleged victim. Ganeshi (PW4) had stood surety for Risal Singh, Shri Chand (PW7) and Pyare Lal (PW9) admits to be close to Risal Singh. Thus all the witnesses are highly interested. Although it is in evidence that a large number of persons had witnessed theoccurrence, not even a single independent and uninterested witness has been citedor produced. And, as far as the persons examined are concerned, I have alreadyshown how they have contradicted each other on all material particulars and whatscant regard they have for truth. No, I do not think the prosecution has proved itscase beyond doubt. It falls to the ground on this ground alone. ( 11 ) THE appellant has taken the plea that he was not present at the spot andthat actually at the relevant time he was on duty and in support he has examined DW-1, Sarupsagar who has categorically stated that on 26/05/1974 the appellantwas on duty from 2 p. m. to 10 p. m. He has proved the entry to that effect in theattendance Register (Ex DW1/a and DW I/b ). Yet another witness examined indefence is DW-2 Amar Singh under whose direct supervision the appellant hadworked on that day from 2 p. m. to 10 p. m. Both the witnesses are Governmentofficials and as such totally independent. Even otherwise they have come outunscathed from the test of cross-examination and I find no reason to disbelieve them. It is unfortunate that the appellant has suffered the ordeal of criminal chargefor 20 years. Fortunately for him it ends on a happy note. I accept the appeal andacquit him of the charge.