JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal by the State of Rajasthan Under section 378(i)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated February 21, 1983 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, acquitted the accused-respondents of the offences Under section 147, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for short `the Indian Penal Code'). 2. The prosecution case in brief was that during the night of March 29/30, 1982 PW 10 Bharat Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Raghunathgarh, Sikar received a wireless message from his Superintendent of Police about an incident having taken place at village Daulatpura. Bharat Singh SHO reached village Daulatpura in the same night and there PW 3 Mahabir Prasad submitted a written report Ex.R 2 before him. The version given in this First Information Report was that on that day when he and five others had reached Daulatpura Bus Stand by Nawalgarh Night Bus Service and came down from the Bus at about 7.00 p.m. the respondents alongwith Bajrang's son opened an attack on them with farsis and lathies and caused injuries to several of them, that he and others ran away to save themselves, from the wrath of the respondents, that the respondents also attacked upon Ded Raj deceased who was going to ease himself and that Ded Raj's condition was deteriorating. Bharat Singh SHO sent this report to the police station for registration of a case and commenced investigation. At the police station Crime No. 35 for offences Under sections 147,148, 149, 323, 307 Indian Penal Code was registered. 3. Bharat Singh SHO, as stated by him before trial court, reached respondent's `Phalsa' in village Katrathal where Ded Raj injured was found lying in unconscious condition. He took the injured Ded Raj in his jeep to S.K. General Hospital, Sikar and got him admitted there at 2.00 A.M. on 30.3.82. Bharat Singh claimed to have returned back to village, prepared the site map where the incident with Ded Raj was alleged to have taken place but found neither any blood stained soil nor any marks or signs of marpeet there and recorded the statements of certain witnesses who made themselves available to him. 4. In the S.K. Hospital at Sikar PW 8 Dr. 4. In the S.K. Hospital at Sikar PW 8 Dr. D.R Sharma examined Ded Raj at 3.00 A.M. on 30.3.82 and found the following injuries on his person : (I) Lacerated wbund 1.5 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on left parietal region of scalp, oblique, 3 cm away from midline. (ii) Abrasion 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm on left thigh in middle ⅓rd anteriorly. (iii) Abrasion 7 cmxl cm on right knee anterio-medially (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on proximal phalanx of left Index finger, dorsal aspect. 5. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon within the last 12 hours. While the injury No. 1 was advised to be X- rayed to determine the nature thereof the rest of the injuries were opined to be simple in nature. 6. Ded Raj succumbed to his injuries on 30.3.82 at 8.10 a.m. On conducting autopsy on his dead body at 9.45 a.m. PW 6 Dr. M.P. Jain found extravasation of blood in left parietal bone. Membrane were found ruptured below in line with that injury with extra dural and sub-dural type of intra- cranial hemorrhage gravitating to the surface of cereberial hemisphere and base of the skull with 1cm x 1/2cm x 1/2 cm laceration of that hemisphere just below the injury. Dr. Jain opined that Ded Raj had died of that injury which was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. 7. After completion of investigation the present respondents were charge-sheeted. The learned Trial Judge charged Madan Lal respondent with the offence of murder substantively and rest of the respondents with that offence constructively with the help of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. All the respondents were charged with the offence of rioting Under section 147 Indian Penal Code as well. All of them pleaded not guilty. To prove its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. The accused examined DW 1 Nand Lal who proved the site-plan prepared by him for the accused on 23.1.83. The plea of the respondents was that the place of occurrence had been shifted to some other place by the prosecution witnesses in their statements at the trial and that such place did not tally with the place where Ded Raj was alleged to have been assaulted by the respondents. 8. The plea of the respondents was that the place of occurrence had been shifted to some other place by the prosecution witnesses in their statements at the trial and that such place did not tally with the place where Ded Raj was alleged to have been assaulted by the respondents. 8. The learned trial Judge held that Ded Raj had no doubt died a homicidal death as a result of the brain injury caused to him but the respondents could not be held responsible for causing his death. In this behalf after minutely and critically examining the prosecution evidence and the circumstances attending on the commission of the crime the learned Judge held that not only the prosecution witnesses were enimical to the respondents and were also interested witnesses but also that they were unreliable witnesses in as much as they changed the place of occurrence and their version was doubtful. He, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them of both the charges. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently urged that the learned trial Judge has not properly and correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence. It was submitted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses should not have been rejected on the sole ground of their being, in one way or the other, related to the deceased and/other injured persons. It was further submitted that neither the prosecution version nor the place of occurrence was changed by the witnesses. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the prosecution theory, as advanced in the F.I.R. and as was tried to be proved at trial, was at variance, that the testimony of the witnesses suffered from material contradictions which rendered the same to be unworthy of any reliance and therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the same and extended benefit of doubt to the respondents. 11. At the very outset it may be stated that undoubtedly in dealing with appeals against acquittals this court has full powers to review the evidence in the case at large but it will interfere only if it is proved without doubt that not only the accused is guilty, but also that he has been acquitted on unreasonable grounds. 11. At the very outset it may be stated that undoubtedly in dealing with appeals against acquittals this court has full powers to review the evidence in the case at large but it will interfere only if it is proved without doubt that not only the accused is guilty, but also that he has been acquitted on unreasonable grounds. It should not be ignored that in appeals against acquittals the accused starts with a double presumption in his favour, first being the inherent presumption of innocence in his favour unless such presumption has been legally shifted or modified and the second being that the accused has secured an order of acquittal in his favour after trial unless it is shown that the inference from the evidence brought on the record of the trial court and the circumstances attending on the commission of the crime in the case irresistibly lead to the accused being guilty of the offence he was charged with. If such presumption is not strengthened by his acquittal it is certainly not weakened. At the same time due weight is required to be given to the views of the trial court which `had the occasion and opportunity to observe and note the behaviour of the witnesses in the witness box. Therefore, this Court will not interfere unless it is shown that on the facts of the case the order of acquittal is wrong and involves miscarriage of justice. 12. It was not disputed before us that Ded Raj deceased had died a homicidal death as a result of the injuries sustained by him. He was an old man of about 70 years and had sustained a head injury which had fractured the left parietal bone and caused laceration of the brain. Such an injury caused on the head of an old man with such degree of force as was sufficient to fracture the parietal bone protecting the brain and also lacerating the brain was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus if on appreciation of the evidence the author of that injury to Ded Raj is found to be having the requisite intention to cause death or the knowledge of the most likely consequences of his act, he may be held guilty of murder punishable Under section 302 Indian Penal Code. 13. Thus if on appreciation of the evidence the author of that injury to Ded Raj is found to be having the requisite intention to cause death or the knowledge of the most likely consequences of his act, he may be held guilty of murder punishable Under section 302 Indian Penal Code. 13. The prosecution case, as set out above, was that it was on a wireless jnessage from the S.R Sikar that PW 10 Bharat Singh S.H.O. had reached village Daulatpura in the early hours of the night of 29th/30th March, 1982, and it was at village Daulatpura that PW 3 Mahabir Prasad had handed him over the written F.I.R. Ex.R 2. This report simply, stated that when the prosecution witnesses had boarded down the Bus at Bus Stand Daulatpura, the respondents opened an attack upon them with lathies and knives whereupon they ran for their lives. It was stated in the F.I.R. that Ded Raj deceased was also assaulted by the respondents while he was going to ease himself. The version given in the F.I.R. indicated that it was in the course of the same transaction that injuries to Ded Raj deceased were caused. The F.I.R. did not point out as to where injuries to Ded Raj were caused. No witness, who might have seen the present respondents causing injuries to Ded Raj, was named in the F.I.R. Even it was not stated that the witnesses, who were allegedly assaulted by the respondents at Daulatpura Bus Stand had seen the respondents causing injuries to Ded Raj. 14. However, at the trial the prosecution case was considerably and materially changed. PW 3 Mahabir Prasad, who is the informant in the case and also claims to be a victim of the assault by the respondents at the Bus Stand Daulatpura, stated that when at about 7.00 p.m. on 29.3.82 he, alongwith PW 2 Ram Swaroop, PW 5 Kedar Mai and PW 6 Suresh came out of the Bus at Daulatpura Bus Stand the respondents started assaalting them with lathies, farssies etc. that he himself was assaulted on ear with a Barchi by Baboo Lal, that after having sustained the ear injury he ran away to his village (Katrathal) by a circuitus route and on reaching the houses of.............. he saw the respondents assaulting Ded Raj. that he himself was assaulted on ear with a Barchi by Baboo Lal, that after having sustained the ear injury he ran away to his village (Katrathal) by a circuitus route and on reaching the houses of.............. he saw the respondents assaulting Ded Raj. He further sated that when the respondents had returned from the scene of occurrence, he and Jai Chand went to Sikar where he tried to lodge the F.I.R. with police station Sadar but the police officials there declined to take his report on the ground that the incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of police station, Raghunathgarh, that thereupon he sent a man to police station Raghunathgarh wherefrom the S.H.O. came to Sikar and they all reached the village. Almost to the same effect is the version given by PW 2 Ram Swaroop, PW 5 Kedar Mai and PW 6 Suresh. This version seems to be more natural than that given by Bharat Singh, SHO (PW 10). 15. It is pertinent to observe that as per the witnesses the incident had commenced at Daulatpura Bus Stand when and where the witnesses had stopped down the Bus and they were allegedly assaulted by the respondents and culminated into causing fatal injuries to Ded Raj under or near a Peepal tree in village Katrathal which is stated to be 1 km. away from Daulatpura Bus Stand. The way and the manner, the incidents are stated to have taken place at two different places, suggest that the two incidents had taken place in the course of same transaction, as the participants in the two incidents were the same persons and the alleged assault had continued without any break, as stated by the witnesses. The assailants could have, therefore, been conveniently prosecuted jointly in a joint trial. It was necessary to do so to avoid conflict of judicial opinion over one or other inseparable part of the prosecution version by two different courts and/or decision making authorities. The common question of appreciation of the same evidence and of the conduct and behaviour of the same persons, whether victims or assailants, was inseparably involved in the two parts of the same version. The common question of appreciation of the same evidence and of the conduct and behaviour of the same persons, whether victims or assailants, was inseparably involved in the two parts of the same version. But in the present case the respondents were not made accused of committing any offence against the prosecution witnesses at Daulatpura Bus Stand, though that part of the prosecution is very much open for appreciation in the present case, it seems and in fact appears from the evidence brought on the record of this case that the present respondents were separately prosecuted for assaulting the prosecution witnesses at Daulatpura Bus Stand. Despite efforts the final face of that case could not be told to us. We were given to understand that since the two places where the prosecution witnesses and the deceased were assaulted fell within the jurisdiction of two different police stations, two separate cases were registered which led to separate prosecutions of the respondents. The course adopted was certainly not in conformity with the principle underlying Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Any way, the course adopted by the prosecution has not only created a lot of difficulty in the way of correct decision of the case but has also created a sort of lacunae in the present case. 16. The other unexplained material contradiction between the direct evidence led by the eye-witnesses and the investigative evidence is that whereas the so-called eye-witness have almost unanimously deposed that Ded Raj deceased was beaten by the respondents under or near the Peepal tree on the way going to his Bara and the witnesses remained sitting around the injured till the arrival of the police there. PW 10 Bharat Singh is emphatic in telling that he had found the injured Ded Raj lying infront of the `Phalsa' of the respondents. The site-map clearly mentions that no signs or marks of any incident having taken place under or near the Peepal tree were found or noted on the way. Then it was not explained as to how the injured body of Ded Raj was found by PW 10 Bharat Singh lying in front of the `Phalsa' of the respondents. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the injured Ded Raj was removed by any body from the place of occurrence near the tree to that infront of `Phalsa' of the respondents. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the injured Ded Raj was removed by any body from the place of occurrence near the tree to that infront of `Phalsa' of the respondents. This position of the prosecution evidence created confusion and serious doubt regarding the actual place of incident with Ded Raj in the present case and consequently materially affected the worth and value of prosecution evidence. The learned Session Judge was therefore, right in taking into account this aspect of the case and in doubting the prosecution version regarding the place of actual occurrence. 17. Coming now to the worth and value of the eye-witnesses it may be observed at the very outset that PW 1 Khyali Ram, PW 2 Ramswaroop, PW 3 Mahavir Prasad, PW 4 Radhey Shyam, PW 5 Kedar Mai, PW 7 Suresh Chand and PW 9 Vinod Kumar were examined as eye-witnesses in this case. Some of them, as would be evident from the discussion to follow, are witnesses of both the incidents i.e. the incident which took place at Daulatpura Bus Stand and that which allegedly took place with Ded Raj deceased in village Katrathal, and some are witnesses of the later incident only. Bifurcating the prosecution evidence in that way we find that the evidence led by PW 2 Ram Swaroop, PW 3 Mahavir Prasad, PW 5 Kedar Mai and PW 7 Suresh Chandra is to the effect that they alongwith four others including Ded Raj deceased were being prosecuted by the respondent party, that on 29.3.82 six of them, including the witnesses, had attended the hearing in the court, that the hearing of the case was over by about 2.00 p.m., that while Ded Raj deceased and his brother Mai Chand left for the village at about that time, the witnesses stayed in the town to make certain purchases, that they boarded the Nawalgarh Night Bus Service in the evening and reached Daulatpura Bus Stand at about 7.00 p.m. and when they came down from the Bus one by one, they were assaulted by the respondents whereupon they ran away to their village Katrathal by different routes. They further stated that on reaching the village they witnessed the respondents assaulting the deceased. They further stated that on reaching the village they witnessed the respondents assaulting the deceased. The first part of the statements of these witnesses should not call for much comments from us as that is reported to be sub-judice in other case and any opinion by us over the truthful or otherwise character of the evidence of these witnesses may adversely affect the case of either party pending before other court or Bench of the court. However, we fail to resist ourselves from making the observation that defence case, as put in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses was that Bajrang Lal respondent had gone to attend hearing of the case against the witnesses, that he was beaten by the witnesses at Daulatpura Bus Stand. This version got supported from the fact that it may be probable that one of the respondents might have gone to Sikar to see and know as to what progress the case filed by them against the witness made on that day. That apart, on being examined on 31.3.82 at 7.45 a.m. by PW 8 Dr. O.P Sharma, the said respondent was found having 1 to 2 days old four injuries on his person. Injuries to Bajrang Lal were not explained by the prosecution and that also probablises the defence version. 18. Be that as it may, the afore named witnesses have given somewhat unnatural and abnormal versions. PW 2 Ram Swaroop stated that on seeing the respondents beating the witnesses, coming down the bus, he hid himself and when the respondents retired from the Bus Stand he followed them upto the village Katrathal and there he saw that while Ded Raj was going to his Bara near the Peepal tree the respondents started beating him with lathies and stones. He further stated that at that very time Khyali Ram PW 1 reached there, he saved Ded Raj from the respondents, a fact not so stated by Kayali Ram, (PW 1), as would be pointed out later on. The witness himself had given no such version in his statement recorded Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code (Ex.P. 2). He further stated that at that very time Khyali Ram PW 1 reached there, he saved Ded Raj from the respondents, a fact not so stated by Kayali Ram, (PW 1), as would be pointed out later on. The witness himself had given no such version in his statement recorded Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code (Ex.P. 2). That apart, it appears to be quite abnormal on the part of the witness that even after the alleged incident with his men at Bus Stand Daulatpura he and/or other witness would reach Katrathal following the respondents on the way and on reaching the village and seeing the elder member of their family (Ded Raj is told to be the uncle of the witness) being assaulted in the manner stated by him would not raise alarm and rescuer, Ded Raj. The testimony of this witness hardly inspires confidence. 19. PW 3 Mahabir Prasad, PW 5 Kedar Nath and PW 7 Suresh, the sons of the deceased, have given almost the same version. PW 3 Mahabir Prasad is also the informant in the present case. A bare reading of the FIR lodged by him, does not give the impression that he had witnessed the respondents causing injuries to Ded Raj. It is not believable that while giving statement to the police (Ex.D. 3) he was so much under the state of shock and depression that he could not give the details of the incident in the same manner as he did in court. He made material improvements in his statement in court. It is unbelievable that no man or woman, as stated by the witness, had rushed to the place where Ded Raj was being beaten by the respondents. In substance his testimony too did not inspire confidence in us. 20. PW 5 Kedarnath stated in examination in chief that he had reached his house at about 9.00 p.m. (as he had kept hidden on the way between Daulatpura and Katrathal) and then came to know of the incident with his father. On his own showing he is not an eye-witness in the case. It is unbelievable that when this information was given to him by his mother and other persons, the injured Ded Raj was still lying under or near the Peepal tree. 21. On his own showing he is not an eye-witness in the case. It is unbelievable that when this information was given to him by his mother and other persons, the injured Ded Raj was still lying under or near the Peepal tree. 21. Similarly PW 7 Suresh Chand stated that after having sustained injuries on his thumb and fingers at Bus Stand Daulatpura he had ran away from that place but fell down on the way after having become unconscious. He reached his house at about 10.00 p.m. and there he came to know of the incident with his father. Obviously he is also not an eye- witness (p the incident with Ded Raj. 22. It may be seen that all the four witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed both the incident and whose evidence has been discussed above, can hardly be accepted eye-witnesses of the occurrence wherein Ded Raj deceased sustained injuries. Apart from the fact that they were kith and kins of the deceased and were also being prosecuted by the respondents at the relevant time, they gave unreliable version of the incident and exhibited unnatural and abnormal conduct. Their testimony inspired no confidence and therefore the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in rejecting their evidence. 23. The second set of the eye-witnesses comprises of PW 1 Khyali Ram, PW 4 Radhey Shyam and PW 9 Vinod Kumar. Of these three witnesses PW 4 Radhey Shyam is a resident of Chandigarh and is stated to have been at Katrathal on the day of the incident during his visit to his in-laws which the other witnesses and the deceased were to him. He has stated that a short time after Ded Raj's going to his Bara to ease himself, Ded Raj's wife came to him and asked him to go out to find as to why and where the hue and cry was being raised, that thereupon he went towards the Bara of Ded Raj and on seeing the respondents from some distance behind a wall beating Ded Raj he stayed there but on the retiring of the respondents he also came back to the house and slept. He admitted that he did raise neither any alarm nor did he try to save Ded Raj from the respondents. He admitted that he did raise neither any alarm nor did he try to save Ded Raj from the respondents. His conduct belies the truth in his testimony and the learned Sessions Judge could have reasonably rejected his evidence for that reason. 24. PW 9 Vinod Kumar is the grandson of the deceased. He runs a Pustak Bhandar at Siliguri (Assam) but claimed to be there in his village Katrathal on the day of the incident. He stated that he had gone to the Bazar which was at a distance of 1/2 km. to take `pan' and therefrom he saw the respondents on the way coming from Daulatpura, that on seeing Ded Raj the respondents started beating him with lathies and stones, that he stayed at a distance and on retiring of the respondents from the scene of occurrence on being challenged by PW 1 Khyali Ram reached there and on finding Ded Raj lying unconscious he returned to his house. He further stated that though the police had reached the village during the same night yet he did not appear before the police and was examined Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code three and four days after the occurrence. He stated not to have exchanged any words either with Khyali Ram (PW 1) or other person. He admitted that he and his father were prosecuted by Madan Lal respondent Under section 107 Criminal Procedure Code in 1980. The fact stated by him clearly speak that this witness too could have hardly been relied upon with regard to the version of assault by the respondents upon Ded Raj. 25. PW 1 Khyali Ram has been projected as an independent eye-witness in this case. He had stated that at the relevant time when he was returning from Purohottam's Chakki after purchasing flour worth Rs. 5/; he saw the respondents going ahead, of him, that on seeing Ded Raj the respondents opened attack upon Ded Raj, that on his challenge the respondents ran away towards their houses but not before pelting some stones at Ded Raj, that he stayed there till the police removed his body from there. In cross-examination he stated that Daulatpura and Katrathal are two different and separate villages at a distance of 1 km. In cross-examination he stated that Daulatpura and Katrathal are two different and separate villages at a distance of 1 km. from each other, have their own separate Panchayats and Bus Stands, that the incident had taken place in village Daulatpura under a Peepal tree which was 30 paces away from Puroshottam's shop. This witness thus totally changed the place of occurrence, as told by other witnesses. He admitted to be a prosecution witness against the respondents in more than two cases. He further admitted that in the present case he had moved an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. He further admitted that he was jobless and doing no work. Respondents questioned his credentials by suggesting his involvement in a number of criminal cases involving offences against property. He improved over his statement in court by having told Bajrang Lal respondent as one of the assailants of Ded Raj though he bad not stated so in his police statement Ex.D. 1. As pointed out above save one or two other witnesses no other witness told his presence on the place of occurrence. A careful reading of the testimony of this witness leaves us in no doubt that this witness is enmical to the respondents, that his presence at the place of incident is not proved to satisfaction and that his testimony inspires no confidence in us. 26. The above, discussion of the evidence of the witnesses, examined in this case, satisfies us that the prosecution theory as put up by PW 10 Bharat Singh S.H.O. and as stated in the FIR Ex.R 2 by PW 3 Mahabir Prasad and also that as stated to police during the investigation and as stated by the witnesses at the trial of the respondents failed beyond doubt to incriminate the present respondents in the offence committed against Ded Raj. The witnesses, apart from being closely related to Ded Raj and for that reason being quite partial and interested, exhibited unnatural and abnormal conduct affecting the very worth of their testimony. Even the actual place of occurrence was not established beyond doubt. The testimony of all the eye-witnesses suffered from material contradictions further reducing the worth of their already unreliable testimonies. Even the actual place of occurrence was not established beyond doubt. The testimony of all the eye-witnesses suffered from material contradictions further reducing the worth of their already unreliable testimonies. In view of such state of affairs and on such doubtful and unreliable evidence the learned Sessions Judge could have reasonably come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondents did not stand proved beyond doubt. We therefore, see no good reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal of the respondents in this case. 27. In the result this appeal by State fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds.Appeal by State dismissed. *******