JUDGMENT 1. - All the four appellants viz. Mehtab Singh @ Kala Singh, Jang Singh, Balkar Singh and Guljar Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2. On April 13, 1988 at 12.15 p.m. one Jaswant Singh went to Police Station, Sri Karanpur and informed the Police that at about 10.30 in the morning of that day, his `siri' (agricultural labour), Billu, Makhan Singh and Lakhan Singh came to him and told that his father Mahendra Singh) Pahalwan Singh was dragged away by Mehtab Singh and Jang Singh and was hit by means of `kasia' and Balkar Singh and Gulzar Singh were also with Mehtab Singh and Jang Singh. He also informed the Police that Billu and Makhan Singh told him that the accused persons have killed his father. First Information Report was lodged and after investigation, the accused persons were prosecuted and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Earlier cognizance was not taken against Balkar Singh and Gulzar Singh but later on March 14,1990, cognizance was taken against them also. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses relied on by the trial Court were not reliable. That, FIR was recorded after visiting the site and after constitution and deliberation. That, FIR was not sent to the Magistrate Court forthwith but was sent on April 14, 1988. According to the learned counsel, this would cause a grave doubt about the time of the lodging of the FIR. It is further contended that Balvindra Singh @ Lallu (PW 4) was an important witness who has not supported the prosecution and without corroboration from him PW 2 Makhan Singh's statement could not be relied upon. It was also contended that there were injuries on the body of accused Jang Singh which were not properly explained and the FIR lodged by Jang Singh was not acted upon. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentences.Makhan Singh (PW 2) is an eye witness to the incident. He deposed that deceased Mahendra Singh was the husband of his wife's sister and Lakha Singh was the younger brother of the husband of his sister. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentences.Makhan Singh (PW 2) is an eye witness to the incident. He deposed that deceased Mahendra Singh was the husband of his wife's sister and Lakha Singh was the younger brother of the husband of his sister. On the day of the incident witness Makhan Singh along with Lakha Singh had gone to the Village - 28H to see him. When they reached at his house at about 10.00 - 10.15 in the morning, they did not find Mahendra Singh at home. Mahendra Singh's wife told him that Mahendra Singh had just gone to the field. The witness Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh did not stay at the house of Mahendra Singh but went towards the field behind Mahendra Singh. They were about one or one and half `killa' (about 80 yards) behind Mahendra Singh. Mahendra Singh reached culvert on the road going towards Village-26 H from where roads to Village 29H and 7th also go. As soon as deceased Mahendra Singh reached the spot, accused Mehtab Singh and Jang Singh came and dragged Mahendra Singh to their tube-well. When they reached the road going to tube-well, Gulzar Singh and Balkar Singh also arrived there. Balkar Singh said "kill him, we have arrived". At that time Balkar Singh was having `kasia' and Gulzar Singh was having a `lathi'. Mehtab Singh and Jang Singh took `kasia' from there, which were available because the fields were being irrigated. Mehtab Singh first hit Mahendra Singh with the `kasia' and Mahendra Singh fell down. Then they started hitting Mahendra Singh with the weapons in their hands. First they hit him near the tube-well on `kachha road' then dragged him to the `baag' and then hit him again. When Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh raised an alarm. Billu @ Balvindra Singh (PW 4) also came on the spot. He also deposed that in this altercation, Jang Singh also received injuries at the hands of other accused-persons. After hitting Mahendra Singh like this, the accused persons went towards 7th Village. Jang Singh's `kasia' was left behind. Other accused persons took away along with them their weapons. After their departure, Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh went to the spot where Mahendra Singh was lying and found that Mahendra Singh had died. Then, Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh went to Mahendra Singh's house. Billu also came behind them. Jang Singh's `kasia' was left behind. Other accused persons took away along with them their weapons. After their departure, Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh went to the spot where Mahendra Singh was lying and found that Mahendra Singh had died. Then, Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh went to Mahendra Singh's house. Billu also came behind them. They narrated the story to Jaswant Singh, the son of Mahendra Singh. Tractor of Jaswant Singh was not available therefore, Makhan Singh brought his Tractor from Village-29-H and taking Jaswant Singh went to Karanpur. Then they went to the Bungalow of Deputy Sahib and when he was not found there, Makhan Singh and Jaswant Singh went to Police Station and lodged the report. He also deposed that the accused persons and Mahendra Singh were on inimical terms. He also stated that when they reached the Police Station Jang Singh and Gulzar Singh were in the Police Station. 5. In his cross-examination, he stated that when they saw Mahendra Singh going towards his field, they did not give him any call from behind as they were about one and a half `killa' behind. The witness also stated that when Mahendra Singh was being dragged by Mehtab Singh and Jang Singh also they did not give him call from behind and did not try to intervene and the accused persons were having weapons. They only shouted when Mahendra Singh was being beaten. He has also deposed that his statement was recorded at about 3.00-3.30 p.m. on the spot and was not recorded in the Police Station. He has also stated that Lakha Singh's village was 100 K.M. away from the spot and he and Lakha Singh had come to the Village 28-H only for meeting Mahendra Singh. When confronted with the Police Statement (Ex. D/2), in which he had stated that at about 10.00 - 10.15, three of them meaning thereby Makhan Singh, Lakha Singh and Mahendra Singh were sitting at Mahendra Singh's place and talking to each other, Mahendra Singh expressed the desire to go to the field Billu all of them started towards the field talking to each other, Mahendra Singh was one or two steps ahead. The witness denied having given such a statement to the Police. The witness denied having given such a statement to the Police. He insisted that he had given the same story in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which he was giving in his testimony. He was further confronted on the question of Billu's presence at the spot. He categorically stated that now he had no faith in Billu @ Balvindra Singh, as he had joined hands with the rival party. He also could not give any explanation as to why in his statement to the Police (Ex. D/2), it was not stated that Balkar Singh had `kasia'. He further deposed that witness Lakha Singh had also joined hands with the other side and, therefore, he had no faith in him also. He could not explain the omission in Ex. D/2, statement to the police, about Mahendra Singh's falling down after receiving first blow. He disowned the statement Ex. D/2 that all the four accused persons started giving blows with 'kassi' and Mahendra Singh fell down. He also could not explain the omission in Ex. D/2 about Mahendra Singh being hit after he had fallen down. He also deposed that he had told the Police about Jang Singh's `kassi' remaining behind in the field and Jang Singh's receiving injuries at the hands of other accused and he could not say as to why his statements were not recorded in Ex. D/2. He was further contradicted by statement to the Police Ex. D /2 where it was stated that Jang Singh and Mehtab Singh took away Mahendra Singh dragging him towards their field and at that time Mehtab Singh and Jang Singh had no weapons with them and they dragged Mahendra Singh to a distance of about one `bigha' or `killa' i.e. 165 feet. He also could not explain his statement in Ex. D/2 in which Jang Singh and Mehtab Singh were said to have been armed with `kassia'. On several other points also, this witness was confronted by his contradictory statement to the Police in Ex. D/2 and he had no satisfactory explanation. 6. He also could not explain his statement in Ex. D/2 in which Jang Singh and Mehtab Singh were said to have been armed with `kassia'. On several other points also, this witness was confronted by his contradictory statement to the Police in Ex. D/2 and he had no satisfactory explanation. 6. Initially, the prosecution was on the basis that there were at-least three eye-witnesses to the incident i.e Makhan Singh (PW 2), Lakha Singh and Billu @ Balvindra Singh (PW 4) but only Makhan Singh and Billu have been examined out of whom Billu (PW 4) has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case at all. He stated that Mehtab Singh hit Mahendra Singh by `kassi' and he saw the fight between the two. He also stated that he had seen Jang Singh alone and no other accused persons. He also deposed that he did not see Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh at the spot at all and he did not even know them. Other eye-witness Lakha Singh was not at all examined. 7. In the circumstances that when Balvindra Singh (PW 4) had turned hostile and had denied the presence of Makhan Singh and Lakha Singh on the spot, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine Lakha Singh to corroborate the testimony of Makhan Singh. In the circumstances of the case, the testimony of only one of the so-called eye-witnesses and that too replead with contradictions, cannot inspire confidence. 8. The learned trial Court while meeting this point was swayed away with irrelevant considerations. It was observed by the trial Court that in Sri Ganganagar area majority of independent witnesses turn hostile as the accused persons influence them in their favour or they are afraid of taking cudgels with the accused persons. It was further observed by the trial Court that Billu @ Balvindra Singh who was an independent witness became hostile in this case and in the society such things are happening that, independent witnesses are not able to depose independently and if for this reason independent witnesses are discarded, it would be difficult to secure any conviction. The trial Court further observed that if the prosecution wanted to fabricate evidence, they would have shown Jaswant Singh as eye witness. To say the least, this cannot be said to be a judicious approach to the case. The trial Court further observed that if the prosecution wanted to fabricate evidence, they would have shown Jaswant Singh as eye witness. To say the least, this cannot be said to be a judicious approach to the case. The trial Court has actually allowed itself to be influenced by the general atmosphere of witnesses turning hostile and this resulting in acquittals. It appears that the trial Court's revision was blurred because of the aforesaid irrelevant considerations and it did not even see the several contradictions which came in the cross-examination of witness Mahendra Singh. The trial Court has observed that he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination which was lesser cross- examination and more suggestions. This is not fair appreciation of the statement of Makhan Singh (PW 2) which read as a whole does not inspire any confidence but deserves to be discarded specially in absence of any corroboration from other eye- witnesses who according to Makhan Singh were present on the spot. 9. The learned trial Judge has also relied heavily on the statement of Jaswant Singh (PW 1), the son of the deceased. Admittedly, he being not an eye-witness had only derived knowledge about the incident. The learned trial Judge has gone to the extent of observing that statement of Jaswant Singh (PW 1) was corroborated by the statement of Makhan Singh (PW 2), were as the testimony of Jaswant Singh should be of corroborative value. Primary evidence would always be of eye-witness and corroboration has to be sought of the testimony of the eye-witness by other evidence. The learned trial Court however looked at the case from a reverse angle. Almost entire testimony of this witness is based on the information of the incident given to him by Makhan Singh and Balvindra Singh and Lakhan Singh. Balvindra Singh @ Billu (PW 4) has turned hostile and Lakhan Singh was not examined. Therefore, his testimony has to be tested comparing it with statement of Makhan Singh (PW 2), alone. This witness was the Sarpanch of the Village. He has admitted the rivalry between the parties because of impending Panchayat Election. He was confronted with his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was contradicted on many counts. An omission has been pointed out as to the weapon shown in the hands of Balkar Singh and Gulzar Singh. He has admitted the rivalry between the parties because of impending Panchayat Election. He was confronted with his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was contradicted on many counts. An omission has been pointed out as to the weapon shown in the hands of Balkar Singh and Gulzar Singh. His statement that he was told that Balkar Singh exhorted others to kill the deceased, was not found in the FIR and his case diary statement. In any case since he had no direct knowledge of the incident, his testimony was not important. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court has clearly erred in relying solely on the testimony of Makhan Singh (PW 2) in the absence of corroboration from Balvindra Singh @ Billu (PW 4), who has been turned hostile and Lakhan Singh was not examined at all. 11. One of the accused persons Jang Singh had received injuries during the incident which were not explained in the FIR and later on a futile attempt to explain them was made by Makhan Singh (PW 2), as having received during the incident at the hands of the other accused persons. The version given by Balvindra Singh @ Billu (PW 4) that Mahendra Singh had hit Jang Singh by means of a `kassi' appears to be probable. Though, this witness has become hostile but there appears to be a grain of truth in his testimony and the explanation for his having implicated all the four accused given by him that Jaswant Singh (PW 1), the Sarpanch of the Village and son of the deceased, had put him under threat of life for implicating Jang Singh, Mehtab Singh, Balkar Singh and Gulzar Singh. It cannot, therefore, be said that the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of recovery of weapons will also have no consequence as the weapons are agricultural equipments commonly used by the agriculturists and it is difficult to connect any of the accused persons with the weapons specifically. 12. In the result, this appeal succeeds. It is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code are set aside. The appellants are in jail. They be set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in connection with any other case.Appeal allowed. *******