JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.92 of trial court, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under: (1) Sahab Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment; (2) Hakim Singh, Siri and Birval for the offence under Section 302/34 and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default of payment of fine each of them further to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ram Bharosi son of Badan Singh Jat, resident of Gothra has given a written report on 15.6.89 in police station Sewar (Bharatpur) regarding incident which is alleged to have taken place on 14.6.89. On that basis, the FIR No. 199/89 was chalked out for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Inquest-report (Ex.P. 3) and site plan (Ex.P. 2) were prepared. Post-mortem was not conducted, post-mortem report is Ex.P. 7. Accused-Appellants were arrested. During investigation, the police found no case, therefore one the Final Report has been given. Thereafter the complainant Rambharose (father of deceased) filed a complaint in the Court of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bharatpur. After recording the statement of Ram Bharose, Gambhir Singf and Smt. Omviri under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. The Trial Court framed charges. Accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial as many as five witnesses were examined Statements of Accused- appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. In defence DW 1 Budhi Singh has been examined by the accused- appellants. Considering the material available on record the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused-appellants have committed murder of Sukhviri, therefore, they have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of trial court, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there is no eye-witness in this case. The prosecutor has altogether improved its story during trial. There is no independent witness in this case. 4. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of trial court, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there is no eye-witness in this case. The prosecutor has altogether improved its story during trial. There is no independent witness in this case. No case was found by the police, therefore, the final report has been given in this case. In case of two sets of witnesses, benefit should be given to accused and witnesses should be believed who give statement in favour of accused. He further submitted that at the most, it is a case of suicide, therefore, there is no justification of conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 302 IPC. 6. At the outset before we proceed, we deem it proper to give the background of the case. Sukhviri was married to Sahab Singh 3 years back. The elder sister of Sukhviri, Smt. Omviri was also married on the same day with elder brother of accused Rupal @ Roop Singh and for last 4-5 months there was a dispute on the jewellery of ladies in family. Therefore, Rupal @ Roop Singh elder brother of accused Sahab Singh and husband of PW 2 Omviri started living separately. Therefore, they were inimical to accused Sahab Singh and Hakim Singh. Hakim Singh is another brother of Sahab Singh. Accused Siri and Birval are cousins of accused Sahab Singh. 7. PW 1 Ram Bharosi has given a written report (Ex.P. 1) in police station Sewar on 15.6.89 to the effect that accused Sahab Singh, Hakim Singh, Siri and Birval have committed murder of Sukhviri. During investigation PW 5 Rameshwar Dayal, Investigating Officer, found that it is a case of suicide and not of murder, therefore, the Final Report has been given. Against the FR the complainant PW 1 Ram Bharosi has filed the complaint in the court of AMJM No. 2, Bharatpur and after statements of Omviri and Gambhir Singh the cognizance has been taken but neither in (Ex.R 1) written-report nor in Istagasa (Ex.R 5) in the Court, there was any allegation against accused-appellants that they were demanding motor-cycle from the complainant. Only first time in the trial Court the allegation has been levelled against accused Sahab Singh that he was demanding motor-cycle. Only first time in the trial Court the allegation has been levelled against accused Sahab Singh that he was demanding motor-cycle. In written-report (Ex.P. 1) and Istgasa (Ex.R 5) the only allegation was that the accused- appellant have committed murder of Sukhviri by throttling at about 7/8.00 p.m. on 14.6.89. 8. PW 1 Ram Bharosi has improved his statement during trial. He stated that his daughter Sukhviri was married to Sahab Singh of village Bhrangpur about 3 years prior to the date of incident. On the day of the incident his son PW 3 Gambhir Singh was in village Bhrangpur. He went to fetch his sister. He reached at about 3.00 p.m. on 14.6.89 and met the accused Sahab Singh and told that he had come to take his sister. Then he went to take bath at the village well and when he came back he saw that accused-appellants had tied a rope round the neck of deceased and were pulling that rope. Immediately he rushed to his elder sister Omviri who was living just infront of the house of Sahab Singh. She came along with Gambhir Singh saw that they had killed Sukhviri. Then Gambhir Singh went back to his villae mothara and informed his father Ram Bharosi. Then complainant came to village Bhrangpur and saw that his daughter Sukhviri was lying dead, his elder daughter Omviri was sitting by side of Sukhviri and ho also saw some signs on the neck of deceased. 9. Ram Bharosi made the report (Ex.R 1) to police. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Bhopal Singh. In the statement before the trial Court he (Ram Bharosi) improved his version and stated that Sahab Singh used to beat Sukhviri and used to tell him that nothing had been given in marriage, at least motor-cycle should be given to him, otherwise he would kill his daughter Sukhviri. As such he tried to introduce motive in this case. He also stated that ail these facts were told to the Investigating Officer but he did not write in the statements under Section 161 Cr.RC. In court he has denied that he ever stated to Investigating Officer that he had asked accused-persons as to why they had killed Sukhviri. 10. As such he tried to introduce motive in this case. He also stated that ail these facts were told to the Investigating Officer but he did not write in the statements under Section 161 Cr.RC. In court he has denied that he ever stated to Investigating Officer that he had asked accused-persons as to why they had killed Sukhviri. 10. PW 2 Omviri stated that she was married with Rupal @ Roop Singh and her sister was married with Sahab Singh (younger brother of Rupal @ Roop Singh) about 3 years back. She further stated that these accused-appellants killed Sukhviri by tying the rope around her neck. On the day of incident at about 7.00 p.m. her brother Gambhir Singh (PW 3) came to her and told that accused-appellants are killing Sukhviri. Immediately she went along with her brother in the house of Sahab Singh and saw a rope tied around the neck of deceased Sukhviri. Hakim Singh caught hold the hands of Sukhviri, Birval caught hold of her legs and Siri also caught hold of Sukhviri and Sahab Singh tied the rope around the neck of Sukhviri. When she asked the accused-appellants, what you are doing then they said that they will kill her also. Meanwhile, some ladies from neighbourhood came on the spot. She saw the bruises around the neck and back of the deceased. Omviri further stated that for about 2 years they were living separately from Sahab Singh and Hakim Singh. She also stated that even before the incident the accused-appellants used to beat her sister. 11. PW 3 Gambhir Singh, brother of deceased claimed to be an eye-witness of the incident. He has deposed that on 14.6.89 at about 3.00 p.m. he reached at Bhrangpur village to take his sister and told Sahab Singh told to come in the evening and take your sister forever. When he came in the evening he saw that Sahab Singh has tied her (deceased) neck with the rope; Hakim Singh put his hand on the mouth of deceased; Birval caught hold of the hands of Sukhviri and Siri caught hold of the legs of Sukhviri. When he came in the evening he saw that Sahab Singh has tied her (deceased) neck with the rope; Hakim Singh put his hand on the mouth of deceased; Birval caught hold of the hands of Sukhviri and Siri caught hold of the legs of Sukhviri. On seeing it, he immediately went to his elder sister Omviri who lives across the road infront of the house of Sahab Singh and told about the incident, then he along with Omviri came on the spot, immediately and saw that these accused-appellants had killed Sukhviri. 12. RW. 4 Dr. Bhopal Singh who conducted the post-mortem has opined it is a case of suicide. The cause of death is not of strangulation but by hanging. PW 5 Rameshwar Dayal, Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of Ram Bharose, Gambhir Singh and Omviri under Section 161 Cr.RC. He stated that there was no allegation against accused Sahab Singh that he was demanding motor-cycle and therefore the accused gave beating to deceased, before the incident also. On the contrary during investigation he found that there was a dispute about jewellery between the ladies of the family, therefore, she was not happy as Rupal @ Roop Singh had taken away the jewellery of deceased and the wife of Hakim Singh. 13. A perusal of site-plan (Ex.R 2) shows that house of Rupal @ Roop Singh, elder brother of accused Sahab Singh is infront of the house of Sahab Singh. Therefore, it is possible that if PW 3 Gambhir Singh has seen the incident and immediately informed to PW 2 Omviri (wife of Rupal) then she also could see some part of the incident. But the question does arise whether PW 3 Gambhir Singh, brother of deceased, is a reliable witness ? There is no dispute that neither in report (Ex.P. 1) made to police on 15.6.89 nor in the Istgasa filed in court, there is any allegation regarding demand of motor-cycle or jewellery by Sahab Singh. If we ignore the statement of PW 1 Ram Bharose, then no other evidence remains which proves motive. It is also true that proof of motive is not essential but it is a relevant fact which must be taken into account to see whether prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. If we ignore the statement of PW 1 Ram Bharose, then no other evidence remains which proves motive. It is also true that proof of motive is not essential but it is a relevant fact which must be taken into account to see whether prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. If we look into the statement of PW 3 Gambhir Singh he told that he went to village Bhrangpur on 14.6.89 at 3.00 p.m. to take his sister. But no specific reason has been given why he came to take only sister, while his another sister Omviri was also married with the elder brother of Sahab Singh and nothing has been said about Omviri. He is a chance witness and interested in conviction of accused- appellants. 15. When relations of Sahab Singh and Hakim Singh with Rupal @ Roop Singh are not cordial, obviously, PW 2 Omviri is inimical towards accused-appellants Sahab Singh, Hakim Singh and Siri. She can give any statement against accused-appellants. 16. If we accept that Sahab Singh was demanding motor- cycle and giving beating to deceased for that, but what benefit Hakim Singh, Birval and Siri can have, if Sahab Singh got a motor-cycle. For a motor-cycle can accused Hakim Singh, Birval and Siri join hands with Sahab Singh to kill Sukhviri ? Our answer is in negative. 17. If we ignore the motive, the whole story of prosecution goes as the genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution and that further creates doubt in the case of prosecution. Only a limited dispute remains whether it is a case of suicide or homicide ? PW 5 Rameshwar Dayal, Investigating Officer in this case who after loding the FIR investigated the matter and found that there was a dispute among the ladies of the family about jewellery and Rupal @ Roop Singh had taken away the entire jewellery of deceased Sukhviri and wife of Hakim Singh. Therefore, Sukhviri was not happy. In such circumstances, it can be a case of suicide and not of homicide. Even Dr. Bhopal Singh has also opined that it is a case of suicide and not of homicide. 18. Suffice it to say that police found no case after investigation and gave Final Report. Therefore, Sukhviri was not happy. In such circumstances, it can be a case of suicide and not of homicide. Even Dr. Bhopal Singh has also opined that it is a case of suicide and not of homicide. 18. Suffice it to say that police found no case after investigation and gave Final Report. PW 2 Omviri was inimical to accused-appellants and is not a reliable witness and PW 3 Gambhir Singh is a chance witness and partisan. No motive has been proved. It appears that the genesis of the crime has been suppressed. In view of these facts of the case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mere doubt cannot take place of proof. There are also material contradictions in the statements of Ram Bharose, Omviri and Gambhir Singh.In the result, the appeal is allowed The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants is set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The accused-appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Offence under section 302/34, 323/34 IPC-Accused & deceased are real brothers - Unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging FIR but explained in statements-Testimony of son & daughter of deceased as an eye-witness trustworthy-Medical report corroborated by oral evidence-Injuries on deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Held : Accused found guilty of murder-Conviction upheld. Criminal Trial-Testimony of child witness explained - Both child witnesses were son and daughter of deceased-Incident took place before him who also got injuries-Fully corroborated statement of each other-Unshaken and unshattered testimony of child witnesses supports the prosecution story.Appeal dismissed. *******