JUDGMENT 1. - Seven appellants before us have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi for the offences under Sections ( 302,147 and 148 and sentenced as follows : Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 6 months. Under Section 147 Indian Penal Code Six months R.I. each. Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code One year's R.I. each. Against this conviction and sentence made on 9.4.1993, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The facts in brief, according to the first information lodged by PW. 1 Nanhe Khan are that on 26.8.1990 at about 11.00 or 11.30 in the morning, he along with Mumtaj and Liyakat were going to village Ranipura for doing some iron assignment. Mumtaj was ahead while he and Liyakat were on bicycle. In the way when they crossed Nahar Node (a place so known as at one time Lions used to come to drink water in this nallah), the seven accused came there armed with gandasi, kulhadies, spear and lathies. They were hiding behind bushes and they came out on seeing Mumtaj, they attacked with the aforesaid weapons. At the same time saying that he was one to plough and sow the fields, finish him so that he forgets sowing field. Details have been given as to which accused used which weapon. The accused came towards these two persons also, but they ran away towards village Ramsar. In the evening they reached the village Bherupura and gave information about the incident to the Up-sarpanch Kalulal and Ward Member Mohammed. They went to the site and found dead-body of Mumtaj leaning against the trunk of the tree and the infromant was of the view that the accused persons had made him sit in this position. As for the quarrel it was given out that the dispute was about the land of Samsuddin, litigation about which was pending in Bundi. The deceased Mumtaj was the nephew of Samsuddin, hence he was killed to take revenge. 3. This report was handed over to the SHO Police Station Dablana next morning at the site when he reached there at about 6.00 a.m. According to the prosecution two persons, namely Nanhe and Liyakat are eye-witnesses to the incident. These two persons have not received any injuries. 3. This report was handed over to the SHO Police Station Dablana next morning at the site when he reached there at about 6.00 a.m. According to the prosecution two persons, namely Nanhe and Liyakat are eye-witnesses to the incident. These two persons have not received any injuries. According to them the incident occurred at about 11.30 a.m. but after that they did not return to the home village but went to another village and for the first time told about this incident at about 7.00 p.m. From there they went to the site and at about 10.00 p.m. they proceeded to Bundi to lodge the report. Before lodging the report they contacted one advocate Sokat Ali and then went to the Kotwali Police Station at Bundi. As the incident had occurred under the jurisdiction of Dablana a wireless message was sent to that Police Station and the time shown in this wireless Ex. D/5 is 12.40 a.m. This wireless says that the incident occurred tonight meaning thereby on the night of 26.8.1990. Further, it has been pointed out that the names of the accused have not been mentioned in this wireless message. PW 1 Nanhe had gone to Bundi along with others, but surprisingly he did not go to the Kotwali but remained with someone else and those who went to Kotwali stated that they were not eye witnesses. On that day it so happened that the SHO Police Station Dablana was at Bundi and he was contacted and informed about the incident and all of them arranged a jeep and travelled to the village Bherupura. In the jeep Nanhe PW 1 also accompanied. He had also got the first information report Ex. P/1, scribed by Ishaq at Bundi but this report was handed over to the SHO Police Station Dablana only in the morning when they reached at the site. PW 1 Nanhe has stated that when the panchanama of the clothes of the deceased was prepared then the persons present gave out that somebody had killed Mumtaj. At that time also he did not give out the names of the accused. 4. Other important circumstances in the case are that at time when witnesses were taken to the place of occurrence by Nanhe and Liyakat at 10.00 p.m. on 26.8.1990 then it was found that there were maggots and blisters in the body. At that time also he did not give out the names of the accused. 4. Other important circumstances in the case are that at time when witnesses were taken to the place of occurrence by Nanhe and Liyakat at 10.00 p.m. on 26.8.1990 then it was found that there were maggots and blisters in the body. These maggots and blisters were also found at the time of post-mortem and are mentioned in the report. Maggots could not be found in a body less than 12 hours after the death and the inference which can be reasonably drawn is that no one had seen the occurrence and only when the dead-body of Mumtaj was found it was decided to name the accused as the assailants. The opinion given by the doctor is also that the person had died 18 to 36 hours before. While lodging the report PW 1 Nanhe as well as other persons whom he had consulted could not decide what time should be given as the time when the occurrence took place. Then in the FIR he mentioned about 11.00 a.m., but in the wireless time given is nighttime. The manner in which the witnesses are gropling in the dark suggests that they had not seen the occurrence but when the dead-body was found they were trying to concoct the occurrence and became eye-witnesses of the incident which they never saw. The circumstances, specially the condition of the body found at the time of postmortem suggests that the occurrence had not taken place as suggested by the witnesses. 5. There are other minor questions also which go unexplained. Why would the accused kill Mumtaj on account of their enmity with his uncle Samsoo. The report of the incident was made at Police Station Kotwali Bundi. Hence the report Ex. P/1 would be hit by section 162 Criminal Procedure Code. and would become inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be used for corroborative purposes. P.W. 1 Nanhe and P.W. 2 Liyakat have not explained as to where they remained for 8 hours after the incident. They could not have taken this much time in covering the distance of 2-3 miles. There is no explanation as to why they did not return to their home village. P.W. 1 Nanhe and P.W. 2 Liyakat have not explained as to where they remained for 8 hours after the incident. They could not have taken this much time in covering the distance of 2-3 miles. There is no explanation as to why they did not return to their home village. We need not dwell upon the contradictions in the statements of PW 1 Nanhe and PW 2 Liyakat, who have denied their own earlier versions. The medical evidence in this case belies the whole prosecution case and makes it unbelievable. 6. Looking to all these circumstances, we hold that the case against the accused had not been proved at all. They are entitled to be acquitted of all the offences. 7. We may mention here that after hearing the appeal on 22.7.1994 we have already allowed it and the accused persons had been directed to be released if not wanted in any other case and reasons for this decision were to be supplied later. Hence in this judgment we have given reasons for acquitting them.Order accordingly. *******