JUDGMENT 1. 1. This jail appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.1.1994, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra (Baran) has convicted appellant Ram Singh Meena for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned trial Judge also convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 325 and 323, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo farther RI for 15 days under section 325, IPC, and to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to further undergo RI for 7 days under section 323, IPC and directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that appellant Ram Singh aged 19 years used to live with his grand-father Hajari aged about 80 years (since deceased) in village Handiko. The father of the appellant was murdered long back. The appellant used to look after his grand-father Hajari, who had about 100 bighas of agricultural land. It is the case of prosecution that on 20.3.93 at about 8-9 A.M. Shrikishan (PW1), who had cultivated the agricultural land of Hajari situated near latter's house at a distance of 200 paces on 'Batai' (partnership) heard an alarm raised by Hajari to the effect "Maar Raha Hai Re". Thereupon, Shrikishan (PW1), who was in the said field saw that the appellant was inflicting stone blows on Hajarilal in the courtyard (Dehlaan), situated in front of latter's house and that his turban was also lying wrapped around his neck. It is alleged that thereafter Hajarilal, who was bleeding from his head, left shoulder and left leg, came from the place of occurrence to his field, where Shrikishan (PW1) was working. Shrikishan (PW1) made him to he on a cot and thereafter went to the village and informed about the incident to Ramdhan Ram Narain, Pappu and others who came to the field of Hajari, who was lying unconscious. However, no medical aid was given to him. Throughout the day Shrikishan (PW1) was busy in making incisions to the poppy crop and that in the evening Hajari succumbed to his injuries. However, no medical aid was given to him. Throughout the day Shrikishan (PW1) was busy in making incisions to the poppy crop and that in the evening Hajari succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, Shri Kishan went to the police station Chhipa Barod, which is situated at a distance of about 6 Kms. from the place of occurrence and lodged an oral report to Shammi-Ulla Khan (PW 8), ASI Incharge Police Station, who drew formal FIR (Ex.P.l) and registered a case for offence under Section 302, IPC. Shammi-Ulla Khan proceeded to the place of occurrence but since it had become dark, he deputed few constables for guarding the same. On the next day, i.e. 21.3.93, he prepared inquest report (Ex.P.3), inspected the site and prepared site plan (Ex.P.2) and also seized and sealed the blood stained Kurta of the deceased vide Ex.P.4. 3. The dead body of Hajarilal was brought to Chhipa Board, where Dr. Jitendra Kumar Dang (PW 7) conducted medico legal autopsy and vide post mortem report (Ex.P. 7) found following external injuries 1. Lacerated wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm. x bone deep on middle of frontal region. 2. Lacerated wound 2x1 cm. on left shoulder. 3. Swelling 3x3 cm. on middle forehead. 4. Lacerated wound 2x2 cm. on left leg middle ⅓ (anteriorly). 5. Abrasion l x l cm. on lower ribs of left side. On dissection of the dead body he found depressed fracture of frontal bone and haematoma over frontal lobe of the brain. The right and and left lungs were also found congested. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to coma caused by the head injury. 4. The appellant was arrested on 23.3.93 vide arrest memo (Ex.P.8). It is alleged that in pursuance to his information dated 27.3.93 (Ex.P.9) he got recovered one stone weighing 1.40 Kgs. from his house vide recovery memo (Ex.P.10). After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile), Atru Camp at Chhabra, who in turn committed the case to the court of the learned trial Judge. 5. The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302, 323 and 325, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. 5. The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302, 323 and 325, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The appellant in his plea recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he was falsely implicated. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After trial, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard Miss Rajesh Kandwal, the learned Amicus Curiae and Miss Sumitra Goyal, the learned Public Persecutor and perused the record of the trial Court in extenso. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae has strenuously contended that the learned trial Judge has not discussed, analysed and evaluated the prosecution evidence in right prospective and that from the prosecution evidence no offence is made out against the appellant. She has asserted that in this case the FIR has been lodged with inordinate delay for which no satisfactory explanation has been given, that on the other hand, as per the statement of Shrikishan (PW1), he had reached the police station at 5 p.m. on 30/3/93 but Shammi-Ulla Khan (PW3), Incharge of the Police Station did not record his report and asked him to go back to the village and to bring Hajari, in case he had not breathed his last; that thereupon he went back to the village and again came to the police station and informed the police that Hajari had already died. Miss Kandwal has therefore, claimed that the initial information given by Shrikishan (PW1) regarding the incident was not reduced in writing by the Incharge of the Police Station and as such, the prosecution has suppressed the first version of the incident. She has also pointed out certain contradictions in the prosecution evidence and submitted that there was no motive for the alleged crime; that the investigation in this case has not been conducted fairly and that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home any offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 8. On the other hand, Miss Sumitra Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor has simply supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasons enumerated therein. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 8. On the other hand, Miss Sumitra Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor has simply supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasons enumerated therein. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. The homicidal death of Hajari is not in dispute, which stands well proved by the testimony of Dr. Jitendra Kumar (PW7), who has proved the post mortem examination report (Ex.P.7). 10. First of all, we shall shortly scan the evidence recorded in this case. Shrikishan (PW 1) is the only alleged eye witness of the incident, but he has resiled from the contents of the FIR (Ex.P.1) on many counts. He has deposed that he had cultivated the crops of linseed on "Batai" basis in the field of deceased Hajari, that the said field is situated nearby the latter's house; that on the ill-fated day 10.00 a.m, while he was working in the said field, he heard an alarm raised by Hajari and thereupon saw that the appellant and deceased Hajari were quarrelling and grappling with each other. He deposed that since he was at a distance of about 200 paces, he could not see as to amongst the appellant and Hajari, who was the assailant. He further deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence i.e. in the courtyard situated in front of the deceased's house, he saw that Hajari was lying unconscious and bleeding from his forehead and shoulder, and that the appellant was also standing there. He stated that thereafter he went to the village and informed Radhan, Prahalad, Balram and others about the incident, who also came to the place of occurrence, that at that time, Hajari was alive but was lying unconscious; that thereafter they served him water, put him in a shadowy place and thereafter went to the police station Chhipa Barod, where he lodged oral report (Ex.P.1). He further deposed that the Incharge of the Police Station did not record his report and asked him to go to the village and to bring Hajari, if he was alive and directed him to keep his dead body there in case he had died, that thereafter he came back to the village and again went to the police station and informed the Incharge of the Police Station that Hajari had already died. He further deposed that thereupon the Incharge of the Police Station came to the place of occurrence in a jeep alongwith some constables at the place of incident and asked the constables to guard the dead body at the place of occurrence during night. He stated that on the next day the Investigating Officer inspected the site, prepared site plan (Ex.P.2) and brought the dead body of Hajari to Chhipa Barod for its post mortem examination. He admitted that at the police station, he had informed the police that the appellant had inflicted injuries to the deceased by stones. However, in cross-examination, he resiled from his earlier version and specifically stated that he had not seen the appellant inflicting stone blows on the deceased. He further stated that since he was at a considerable distance, he did not know as to who had caused injuries to the deceased. He was neither declared hostile nor was re-examined by the prosecution. He admitted that Hajari was aged about 80 years, and suffering from certain ailments for last many days prior to the incident, that the appellant used to look after and give medicines to him. He further admitted that the deceased Hajari was a short tempered person and used to become angry off and on. He reiterated that on that day, he had gone to the Police Station twice, firstly at about 5 P.M. when the Incharge of the Police Station asked him to go back to the village and to inform as to whether Hajari was still alive or had died and secondly, at about 8-9 p.m. This witness has, therefore, not supported the prosecution case and stated that he had not seen the appellant inflicting stone blows and causing injuries to Hajari. He has also resiled from the contents of FIR (Ex.P. 1), wherein he had claimed that he had seen the appellant inflicting stone blows on Hajarilal and thereby causing injuries to him. This witness has also not stated that on the day of the incident, he was busy making incisions to the poppy crop, that Hajari had died in the evening and that thereafter he had gone to the Police Station. This witness has thus given inconsistent and contradictory statement and changed his version at different stages. Hence he is not at all a reliable witness. This witness has thus given inconsistent and contradictory statement and changed his version at different stages. Hence he is not at all a reliable witness. But the learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored the aforesaid material inconsistencies and contradictions and committed error relying on his testimony. In our considered opinion, Shrikishan (PW1) is not a witness of sterling worth. 11. Rambal (P W 2) stated that he reached place of occurrence after Hajari had died, and the police had arrived in the field of the deceased, that the dead body of the deceased was lying on a cot; that the police had asked him to guard the dead body of Hajari in the night, and that on the next day site plan and Panchayatnama (Ex.P.2 & P.3 respectively) were prepared in his presence. Hence this witness does not incriminate the appellant with the crime. 12. Madan Meena (PW3) is the nephew of the deceased Hajarilal, who resides in different village Uchakpura. He came to the place of occurrence in the evening. He stated that he did not notice any injury on the person of the deceased. He has simply proved his signatures on Panchnama (Ex.P. 3) and memo of delivery of the dead body of the deceased (Ex.P. 5). Therefore, he also does not connect the appellant with the alleged crime. 13. Kalyan (PW 4), whose house is situated just in front of the house of the deceased, deposed that he was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence as he had gone out to collect fodder, that Shrikishan (PW 1) had called him and at that time he found that Hajari lal was lying unconscious in his field. He further stated that at the instance of Shrikishan (PW1) he had gone to the village to call the villagers. He specifically stated that Kishanlal did not tell him as to who had inflicted injuries to Hajarilal. This witness was declared hostile. He has disowned his police statement (Ex.P. 6). Therefore, this witness does not help the prosecution. 14. Prahlad (PW 5) deposed that Kalyan had informed him that Hajarilal was lying unconscious in his field (Bari), that thereupon he came to the said field, and found that Hajari lal was lying injured and unconscious and that at that time Shrikishan (PW1) had informed him that appellant Ram Singh and the deceased had quarrelled with each other. 14. Prahlad (PW 5) deposed that Kalyan had informed him that Hajarilal was lying unconscious in his field (Bari), that thereupon he came to the said field, and found that Hajari lal was lying injured and unconscious and that at that time Shrikishan (PW1) had informed him that appellant Ram Singh and the deceased had quarrelled with each other. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the father of appellant was murdered and that the appellant used to look after and attend and to give medicines to Hajari. He stated that the deceased Hajari had considerable quantum of land property and the appellant is the sole heir of the deceased. 15. Mangilal (PW 6) has simply proved the Panchnama (Ex.P. 3). Kishor (PW 10) has proved the site plan (Ex.P. 2) as also recovery memo of the stone (Ex.P.10). However, in cross-examination, he has specifically stated that the appellant did not get recovered any stone to the Investigating Officer in his presence and that his signatures were procured on a blank paper. It may also be mentioned here that a bare perusal of the recovery memo (Ex.P.10) reveals that the stone alleged to have been recovered from the house of the appellant was not blood stained and the same was also not sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical/serologist examination nor the said stone was even produced in the Court. Thus, the alleged recovery of the stone is meaningless. 16. Ramnarain (PW 11) has stated that Shrikishan (PW 1) had informed him that the appellant had killed Hajari and that he was going to lodge the report at the police station. In his cross-examination. This witness has clearly admitted that he had not seen the appellant, inflicting injuries to the deceased. He further stated that on the day of the incident, he had sent Shrikishan (PW1) to the Police Station at about 12 noon. 17. Shammi-Ulla Khan (PW 9), ASI, who was Incharge of the Police Station Chhipa Barod on 20.3.93, deposed that Shrikishan (PW 1) lodged an oral report at about 8.30 p.m., which was reduced into writing by him vide FIR (Ex.P. 1). 17. Shammi-Ulla Khan (PW 9), ASI, who was Incharge of the Police Station Chhipa Barod on 20.3.93, deposed that Shrikishan (PW 1) lodged an oral report at about 8.30 p.m., which was reduced into writing by him vide FIR (Ex.P. 1). He refuted the suggestion that Shrikishan (PW1) had come to the Police Station at about 5 p.m. and that he had asked the latter to go to his village and bring Hajari if he was still alive and in case he had died, then to inform him accordingly. Thus, there exist material and significant contradictions in the statements of Shrikishan (PW 1) and Shammmi-Ulla Khan (PW 9) about the time when the report of the incident was made. 18. The alleged incident took place at about 8-9 a.m. Police Station Chhipa Barod is situated at a distance of 6 Kms. from the place of occurrence, still then the report (Ex.P.1) was lodged at 8.30 p.m. i.e. after about 11 hours. This inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained at all by the prosecution. In the FIR it has been mentioned that since Shrikishan (PW 1) was busy in making incisions to the poppy crop he reached the Police Station in the evening. On the other hand, Shrikishan (PW 1) deposed that he had reached the Police Station around 5 p.m. and informed about the incident to the Incharge of the Police Station but his report was not recorded and he was asked to go to the village and the bring Hajari, if he was alive. We do not find valid reasons to disbelieve this part of the statement of Shri Kishan (PW 1), which manifestly discloses non-co-operative and inhuman attitude of Shammi- Ulla Khan (PW9), who was the then Incharge of the Police Station Chhipa Borad. 19. The investigation in this case has also been conducted in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. The blood stained Kurta of the deceased as also recovered stone, which as per recovery memo (Ex.P.10) had a yellow tinge were not sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for their chemical and serological examination. Even those material articles were not submitted in the Court and got exhibited. From the evidence recorded by the trial Court, there is not a fringe of evidence to throw light about the motive for the murder of the deceased Hajari. Even those material articles were not submitted in the Court and got exhibited. From the evidence recorded by the trial Court, there is not a fringe of evidence to throw light about the motive for the murder of the deceased Hajari. The prosecution evidence is replete with material contradictions, significant inconsistencies and substantive improvements. The statement of the alleged sole eye witness Shrikishan (PW1) is self-contradictory and waivering and the same does not inspire any confidence. 20. It is needless to mention that there has always been a golden thread in web of criminal jurisprudence that to ensure conviction the prosecution has to adduce clear, cogent and convincing evidence and to prove the guilt against the accused to its hilt beyond reasonable doubt. 21. On the basis of such a vague, uncorroborated, inconsistent, lame and lifeless evidence, the prosecution has palpably failed to bring home any offence against the appellant and as such, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 22. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence of appellant Ram Singh are set aside and he is acquitted of the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 325, IPC. The appellant is in Jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in other case. The jail authority be informed accordingly. The record of the lower court be sent back. *******