Judgment : Giridhar Malaviya, S.K.Phaujdar 1. The present six appellants stood charged for offences under Sections 148 and 302/149,I.P.C. and were tried in S. T. No. 411 of 1983 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut. They were found guilty of the offences charged and each was convicted and sentenced R.I. for 18 months under Section 148, I.P.C. and to Life Imprisonment under Section 302/149, I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The order of conviction and sentences were recorded on 30.6.1984 against which the present appeal has been filed. All the six appellants were directed to be released on ball. 2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Mamchand Gir at the police station Jani, district Meerut on 12.7.1983 at about 11 a.m. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that on that date at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant, his son Subhash and daughter Sunita were engaged in harvesting Lobia in their field when Rishi Gir, Satyapal Gir, Kailash Gir, Mamchand Gir, Bijendra Gir and Virendra Gir came to the spot by the side of the well of the complainant. One Nathu Gir was sitting under the shade of a tree near the well and Chhidda Gir son of Nathu Gir was picking sugarcane in a nearby land. When the complainant, his son and daughter came near the well after the harvest, the aforesaid Rishi Gir and others all of a sudden attacked Subhash son of the complainant. Rishi had a kripan in his hand, Satyapal a knife, Kailash and Mamchand ballams (spears) while Bijendra and Virendra also held knives. Subhash fled towards the maize field of Smt. Shiv Kaur. He was chased by the accused persons, caught and surrounded by them and was assaulted by knives sword and spears on his neck, head and back. The injuries were piercing ones (the term 'GOND DIYA' in Hindi has been used in the F.I.R.). On alarm being raised by Manohar and his daughter, Jaipal came to the spot. They all tried to save Subhash but he breathed his last at the spot itself, the assailants ran away towards the canal. It was indicated in the F.I.R. that a few days prior to the present incident, one Summar Gir's son Mangu had died in a mutual quarrel with Manohar and others. They all tried to save Subhash but he breathed his last at the spot itself, the assailants ran away towards the canal. It was indicated in the F.I.R. that a few days prior to the present incident, one Summar Gir's son Mangu had died in a mutual quarrel with Manohar and others. The accused persons belonged to the clan of Summar and only on that grudge and to have avenged that killing, the accused persons had killed Subhash. The dead-body lay in the maize field of Smt. Shiv Kaur. The F.I.R. was scribed by Chhidda Gir son of Nathu Gir. The police started an investigation, sent the dead-body for postmortem examination, seized the relevant materials and submitted a charge- sheet against the present appellants. In the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Subhash, the autopsy surgeon found 7 incised wounds scattered over the neck, chest and arm, etc. The surgeon had opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. The stomach contained 150 gms of partially digested food materials. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 13.7.1983 at about 5.15 p.m. and the death, according to the surgeon, occurred about 1 1/2 days prior to the time of examination. Rigor mortis was absent in all forelimbs and decomposition had started. 3. In the charge under Section 148, I.P.C. that was framed against the appellants, it was stated that they were members of an unlawful assembly and the common object of such assembly was to cause death of Ruhhash Gir and they were armed with sharp-edged weapons in the charge under Section 302/149, I.P.C. it was stated that in prosecution of their common object, murder of Sub-hash Gir was committed. The prosecution examined 9 witness. They were the complainant, Manohar Gir, his daughter Sunita (named in the court as Kunita), as also Dal Chand, Rajbal, Om Prakash, Virendra Kurrmr. Sohan Lal, Rajesh Kumar Mithal and Dr. S. K. Jain, who conducted the autopsy. 4. Amongst the witnesses, Manohar and Kunita are witnesses to the incident. P.W. 3, Chand, was a police constable who proved the chick report made on the basis of the F.I.R. P.W. 4, Rajbal Singh, again was a constable who had carried the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. P.W. 5, Om Prakash, was also a police official posted as Head Moharrir at the police station Jani. P.W. 3, Chand, was a police constable who proved the chick report made on the basis of the F.I.R. P.W. 4, Rajbal Singh, again was a constable who had carried the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. P.W. 5, Om Prakash, was also a police official posted as Head Moharrir at the police station Jani. He received the clothings of the deceased from constable Rajbal. P.W. 6 was a constable (No. 381), Virendra Kumar. He had forwarded an application of Manohar Gir to the police station Jani after obtaining due orders from the Superintendent of Police. P.W. 7 was constable Sohan Lal. He spoke of receipt of another application from Manohar Gir on 15.7.1983. P.W. 8, Dr. S. K. Jain, had held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Subhash and he had proved the ante-mortem injuries that he had found and he gave his opinion as to cause of the death. The last witness, P.W. 9 was Rakesh Kumar Mittal, the officer in-charge of police station Jani. He had investigated into the case. After the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined individually under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It was the defence of Rishi Gir that he was implicated due to enmity as his father was a witness in the case of murder of Mangu (as stated). The same defence was taken by Satya Pal also. Accused Kailash Gir took up a plea that Manohar had a land dispute against him and for that reason he was falsely implicated. Kailash Gir also took up a plea of alibi stating that he was an amin in tehsil Meerut and on the date of the alleged incident, he was away to the village Jajokar where he fell ill and came back. 5. Chhidda Gir son of Nathu Gir was examined as a defence witness. He proved a report that was written by him under directions from Manohar immediately after the murder of Subhash. He further explained that he had accompanied Manohar to the police station where the police officer got a second report written by him. The record shows that the trial court had rejected the defence prayer for examination of CHHIDDA as a court witness. On this, order was passed on 30.4.1984. CHHIDDA was examined as a defence witness on 21.6.1984. 6. He further explained that he had accompanied Manohar to the police station where the police officer got a second report written by him. The record shows that the trial court had rejected the defence prayer for examination of CHHIDDA as a court witness. On this, order was passed on 30.4.1984. CHHIDDA was examined as a defence witness on 21.6.1984. 6. From what has been indicated above, it appears that only two persons had come forward as eye-witnesses. Most of the others were police personnel and were formal in nature while P.Ws. 8 and 9 were the Doctor and the Investigation Officer and D.W. 1 was admittedly the scribe of the F.I.R. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the eye-witnesses were highly inimical and were partisan witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused persons had no community of purpose and there was no motive for them to kill Subhash. An immediate motive was attributed at the time of trial and its impact would be judged when evidence is taken up for discussion. It was contended further that the existence of the two F.I.Rs. suggest that the prosecution case was a got-up one. It was also argued that the medical evidence was inconsistent with ocular testimony and was also against the case made out in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that in fact there were no two F.I.Rs. because the paper proved as the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was in one sheet and the chick was also in one sheet. Existence of injuries on the back, according to the learned counsel for the prosecution, suggested that the victim was running away when he was assaulted. He laid stress on the promptness of the F.I.R. to rule out any deliberation or exaggeration. 7. It is necessary to take the eye-witnesses account first together with the F.I.R. and the version of the defence witness on the existence of a second F.I.R. 8. According to the Ext. Ka-1, which has been proved by the prosecution as the F.I.R., the assault was made on the deceased by all the six accused persons and definite weapons were allegedly held by them. They were Kripan (sword), knife and Ballam (spear). According to the Ext. Ka-1, which has been proved by the prosecution as the F.I.R., the assault was made on the deceased by all the six accused persons and definite weapons were allegedly held by them. They were Kripan (sword), knife and Ballam (spear). In the F.I.R., the motive was also attributed to the accused persons and it was stated that the present murder was committed as a retaliation to the murder of one Mangoo. The place of occurrence was also described as a maize field of Smt. Shiv Kaur. During the cross-examination of P.W. 1, Manohar, another paper was produced before him which was marked 12/Ka at that stage. It was suggested to him that two reports were written, the subsequent one at the police station. Manohar Gir admitted his signature on this paper 12/Ka. Only at that stage, he came out with an explanation that the police officer got his signature on some more pieces of paper. The trial court had before him both these papers and he had disbelieved the theory put forward by Chhidda Gir, D.W. 1, that initially Ext. Kha-1 (originally marked 12/Ka) was written or that he was forced to write another at the police station. Evidence of P.W. 1 indicates that he had gone to call Chhidda Gir from the village and he got a report written at the village by Chhidda Gir in his own house and he made it over to the police officer at the police station. The evidence of D.W. 1, Chhidda Gir, discloses that the paper marked 12-Ka (later marked Ext. Kha-1) was written by him and Manohar had signed on it. He also stated that this report was written at the instance of Manohar on the date of murder of Subhash in the village itself. Chhidda had accompanied Manohar to the police station and Ext. Ka-1 was written by him at the police station at the instance of the police officer. The prosecution proved through this witness his signature on an affidavit and the paper was marked 61 Kha. The prosecution also proposed to rely on one statement of this witness that the statements in the two F.I.Rs. that all the accused persons had assaulted the deceased was a true one. He denied the suggestion that Ext. Ka-1 was written by him on a blank paper on which Manohar's signature were already there. The prosecution also proposed to rely on one statement of this witness that the statements in the two F.I.Rs. that all the accused persons had assaulted the deceased was a true one. He denied the suggestion that Ext. Ka-1 was written by him on a blank paper on which Manohar's signature were already there. He offered an explanation that under fear of being detained by the police, he wrote out the second report (Ext. Ka-1). The trial court rejected the statement of Chhidda Gir on the ground that he was reported to have been won over by the accused. He also questioned the authenticity of Ext. Kha 1 as there was no explanation how it had gone to the hands of the accused persons. The trial court concluded that the paper was prepared subsequently and was made over by police officers themselves to the accused persons as they had a soft corner for the accused persons. In our view, this approach was too casual and may not be supported. Chhidda Gir had litigation with more than one of the accused persons and nothing has been brought on record to show that he was really gained over by the defence and in Court also he made a statement supporting the scribing of the two F.I.Rs. in which the names of all the accused persons were there. A mere statement by the public prosecution that he was gained over could not be an indicator that this where as really turned hostile to the prosecution. It must be presumed, therefore, thai that Chhidda Gir had stated regarding scribing of Ext. Ka and Kha-1 was true. Ext. Kha-1 was scribed in the village almost immediately after the incident and Ext. Ka-1 was scribed subsequently and a mere reading of these two papers would indicate that while Ext. Kha-1 had given only the gist of the incident and the names of the accused persons as is normally expected from a rustic villager, Ext. Ka-1 suggests some sophisticated hand behind it giving every detail including presence of witnesses, place of occurrence, weapons held individually by each accused as also the motive for murder. Once it is believed that Ext. Kha-1 was the first ever report written, it becomes the first ever statement of the incident by the eye-witness Manohar, and the subsequent statement in Ext. Ka-1 must not override this earlier version. Once it is believed that Ext. Kha-1 was the first ever report written, it becomes the first ever statement of the incident by the eye-witness Manohar, and the subsequent statement in Ext. Ka-1 must not override this earlier version. On a comparison of these two F.I.Rs. so far the accused persons are concerned, it is gathered that Rishi and Satyapal were attributed the role of assault by Kripan and Chaku, respectively, while Kailash was attributed the role of assault by bedlam. The rest three, namely, Bijendra, Vlrendra and Mamchand were attributed the role of assault by lathi. The injuries that were found by the autopsy surgeon (P.W. 8) were all caused by sharp edged weapons. There is not an injury which could have been caused by a lathi. The subsequent attribution to Mamchand, Bijendra and Virendra of the role of assault by sharp edged weapons must, therefore, be looked with suspicion. Admittedly, Manohar Gir had litigations against the accused persons and the doubt regarding assault by Mamchand, Bijendra and Virendra by sharp-edged weapons is reinforced as Nathu Gir and Jaipal were not examined by the prosecution to prove the incident although they were named in both reports (Ext. Ka-1 and Kha-1). Chhidda Gir was also not examined on the point of the incident except to the extent of expressing his opinion that what was stated in the F.I.Rs. regarding participation of all the accused persons was true. Upon this analysis, and without going further into the merits of the case, it may be held that there remained a doubt if Bijendra, Virendra and Mamchand had participated in the murder of Subhash Gir at all. They must, therefore, be given the benefit of that doubt and be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The case against the other three appellants, namely, Rishi, Satyapal and Kailash, however, cannot be thrown away simply because of disbelieving a part of the story. For them, an analysis of the prosecution evidence is necessary. 9. As indicated earlier, the evidence on the point of murder had come through P.Ws. 1 and 2 only. The other witnesses had simply given evidence of formal nature which was aimed at corroborating the prosecution story on some point or the other. P.W. 1 Manohar Gir had given the background of enmity and old litigations which resulted in the present murder. 1 and 2 only. The other witnesses had simply given evidence of formal nature which was aimed at corroborating the prosecution story on some point or the other. P.W. 1 Manohar Gir had given the background of enmity and old litigations which resulted in the present murder. Subhash was a son of Manohar Gir and the deceased and his father and sister were engaged in harvesting Lobiya when Subhash was chased by the accused persons. He ran towards the field of Shiv Kaur where he was apprehended. Rishi Gir was reported to have given a kripan blow after Subhash was caught hold of. Ballam blows were allegedly given by Kailash and Mamchand with knife blows were allegedly given by Bijendra Gir, Virendra Gir and Satya Pal Gir. On alarm by Manohar Gir and others viz. Nathu Gir, Chhidda Gir and Jaipal came there Chhidda was engaged in his own sugarcane field by the side of the field of Shiv Kaur. After the incident, the accused persons fled away towards the canal. Manohar Gir got a report written by Chhidda Gir. He signed on it and made it over to the police station. He further alleged that the police had not conducted the investigation properly and hence he made a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police. His cross- examination indicates that at the instance of the Ishwar Gir, this Manohar Gir, Subhash and Chhidda were prosecuted in a criminal case. It was suggested to him that the relations of Kailash had deposed against them in that case. His cross-examination further discloses other litigations between Khadeeru (father of Kailash) and himself. His cross-examination indicates that attack was made all of a sudden. When confronted with the description of the incident in the first information report, this witness frankly admitted that he could write in the first information report that much only which was possible under that situation (Jitna mujhe hosh raha utna hi likhaya). The witnesses accepted in his cross- examination that the accused persons had tried to pierce their weapons on Subhash but Subhash was moving his limbs and body and the weapons hit him horizontally. When asked pointedly if he saw any ballam stroke had pierced the person of Subhash, he accepted that ballams had pierced. The witnesses accepted in his cross- examination that the accused persons had tried to pierce their weapons on Subhash but Subhash was moving his limbs and body and the weapons hit him horizontally. When asked pointedly if he saw any ballam stroke had pierced the person of Subhash, he accepted that ballams had pierced. He, however, insisted that during all attacks, Subhash moved in such a manner that the injuries were received from the flat ends of the weapons. The kripan was 1 1/2 span in length, the knife was 1 span and l/4th in length. This witness did not try to save Subhash even by use of lathi or brickbats. He only shouted orally. The accused persons did not attack him in any manner. This witness further accepted in cross-examination that from the spot he went to the village to call Chhidda Gir and he got the report written at the village. It was suggested to him by the defence that he had not seen the actual killing and had only implicated the accused- persons due to previous enmity. His statement speaks of presence of his daughter in the field and he further stated that Kunita (his daughter) had torn her sari to bandage the wound of Subhash on his neck. No other part is attributed to Kunita. For the witnesses Chhidda, Nathu and Jaipal, it was only stated that they were gained over and were not ready to depose for the prosecution. 10. The examination of Kunita was done in the question and answer form. Her statement indicates that Manohar alongwith his daughter and Subhash had gone to their field to harvest Lobiya, when Kailash and Mamchand came up with ballam Bijendra, Satyapal and Virendra with knives and Rishi with a kripan. Nathu was sitting under a tree. The accused persons ran towards Subhash, chased him up to the land of Shiv Kaur, surrounded him and assaulted him with ballam knives and kripan. She and her father raised alarm from a distance on which Nathu, Jaipal and Chhidda came there. Subhash died at the spot. The accused persons fled towards the canal. Thereafter she went near Subhash and bandaged his neck with her own sari. She identified the clothes in the Court. She was a married girl and had come to the village only one month prior to the incident. Subhash died at the spot. The accused persons fled towards the canal. Thereafter she went near Subhash and bandaged his neck with her own sari. She identified the clothes in the Court. She was a married girl and had come to the village only one month prior to the incident. The reasons for her coming to the village was that she wanted to see the injuries of her father which he suffered in a quarrel. Her cross-examination indicates that her real name is Laxmi and she had a sister named Sunita. The defence tried to raise a doubt on the identify of this girl which, in our view, is not relevant as in the F.I.R. also (both in Ext. Ka-1 and Kha-1) the girl was named Kunita. She was also cross-examined on the point of the incident. According to her 7 and 8 bundles of Lobiya were harvested and 3 sickles were used in harvesting Lobiya and the bundles of Lobia on the spot. She was also asked a pointed question if the weapons were used in a piercing manner or in a cutting manner (bhokne ke tarike se mare ya katne ke tarike se). Her answer spoke of piercing (bhokne ke tarike se mare). She added voluntarily that the deceased was moving his limbs. She accepted that even after he fell down, all the accused persons gave him blows for about one minute or so. She accepted that 7 or 8 blows of ballam were given after Subhash had fallen down and kripan and knives were also used at the same time, not one after another. She admitted to a court question that there were in all 7 or 8 blows while Subhash was standing and further 7 or 8 blows after he had fallen down and she could not say at which parts of his person ballam hit. P.W. 3 Dal Chand stated that on 12.3.1983, he was posted at police station Jani. The paper Ext. Ka-1 was brought by Manohar Gir to the police station and he prepared a chik report on the basis thereof and started a case. He denied that the report in 12-Ka (Ext. Kha-1) was first made over to the police station. P.W. 3 Dal Chand stated that on 12.3.1983, he was posted at police station Jani. The paper Ext. Ka-1 was brought by Manohar Gir to the police station and he prepared a chik report on the basis thereof and started a case. He denied that the report in 12-Ka (Ext. Kha-1) was first made over to the police station. P.W. 4, Rajbal Singh, was a witness to the panchayatnama on the dead body of Subhash and after this panchayat nama, the witness had the dead body to the doctor for post-mortem examination. There is nothing in his examination or cross-examination to indicate that any wearing apparel was seized from the dead body or brought back to the police station. P.W. 5, Head Moharrir Om Prakash, however, stated that Rajbali had brought a baniyan and lungi after the post-mortem examination and he identified these two clothes. P.W. 6, constable, Virendra Kumar was attached to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police on 11.7.1983. He had received an application of Manohar Gir on that date, got the signature of the Senior Superintendent of Police on it and forwarded it to the police station Jani on 18.7.1983. There was no entry in any register about the receipt of that application. There was no good explanation why it was sent to the police station after a week. P.W. 7, constable Sohan Pal, was also attached to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police. On 15.7.1983 he had received another application from Manohar Gir and had proved the register indicating the receipt of the application. While P.W. 6 had proved Ext. Ka-5 as his signature in token of receipt of the application of Manohar dated 11.7.1983 P.W. 7 had proved his signature as Ext. Ka-6 on the application of Manohar Gir dated 15.7.1983. These two application were subsequently proved by Manohar Gir in his examination on recall on 2.4.1984. The application dated 11.7.1983 indicated a quarrel in an assembly convened for compromise. It is not understood why a report was not made to the police station and what prompted him to make a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police directly. As already indicated, there was nothing in the statement of P.W. 6 to show that it was entered in a register in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is not understood why a report was not made to the police station and what prompted him to make a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police directly. As already indicated, there was nothing in the statement of P.W. 6 to show that it was entered in a register in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The prosecution does not bring the original that was sent to the police station Jani. So far the application dated 15.7.1983 is concerned, it was also stated to have been received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police on 15.7.1983 itself. Although P.W. 7 brought the register, the same was not proved nor does it indicate what action was taken thereon. This application dated 15.7.1983 spoke of the incident during the assembly for compromise but makes no reference to the application dated 11.7.1983. Concerning the allegation dated 12.7.1983, the first information report was already lodged regarding murder of Subhash and the statements made herein on that incident are hit by Section 161, Cr. P.C. An apprehension was expressed that the Investigating Officer had sided with the accused persons and a prayer was made for conduction of the investigation through another agency. In the absence of proof of any follow-up action, the possibility of these papers having been manufactured subsequently, may not be ruled out as no report of these apprehensions were made before the Court. 11. P.W. 8, Dr. S. K. Jain, held post-mortem examination on 13.7.1983 at 5.50 p.m. The dead body was brought to him by constables Mohan Lal and Rajbali under a sealed cover. According to the doctor, the death took place about 1 1/3 days prior to the examination. He found several ante-mortem injuries on the dead body. They were cut injuries scattered over chest and throat area and there were also other cut injuries, all muscle deep, on the neck, waist, upper left arm and chest. The trachea was found cut. The doctor opined that the injuries were possible from kripan, knives and ballam. In his cross-examination, he made a definite admission that none of these injuries was a punctured wound. He further admitted that if a sharp pointed weapon would have been pierced then there could be punctured wounds. He further admitted that the trachea was Just under the skin. The doctor opined that the injuries were possible from kripan, knives and ballam. In his cross-examination, he made a definite admission that none of these injuries was a punctured wound. He further admitted that if a sharp pointed weapon would have been pierced then there could be punctured wounds. He further admitted that the trachea was Just under the skin. He made a categorical statement that the injuries caused to the deceased were by way of cutting and not by way of piercing. This statement, when confronted with the eye-witnesses account of the incident, leads us to a doubt if the injuries were caused by piercing weapons against Subhash as described by Manohar and Kunita or the weapons were used in a manner to cause cut injuries. 12. This discrepancy was explained by the learned trial Court by saying that this was evident that Subhash was moving himself in order to ward off the blows and the Court was of the view that a sharp edged weapon when used in a slanting way was likely to cause incised wound and that explained the absence of any punctured wound on the dead body. He relied on a Supreme Court decision to hold that the mere fact that in a murder case, the evidence of the eye-witness was inconsistent with the medical evidence was not sufficient to make the eyewitness account unreliable. It is true that the medical evidence is always an opinion evidence while the eye-witnesses is supposed to give a first hand account of the incident, but the truth of the eye-witness account is to be judged, firstly, from the internal contradiction and, secondly, from a comparison of the same with the medical evidence and other materials. In this case, the existence of two first information reports have been discussed earlier and the informant, Manohar, has been disbelieved so far involvement of the three accused persons were concerned for whom the initial allegation spoke of assault by lathi but subsequently allegations were changed to involve them for using sharp edged weapons. The eye-witness account, if otherwise unassailable, may not simply be thrown away for its inconsistency with the opinion evidence. But when eyewitnesses account suffers from doubt, this inconsistency gains a considerable weight. The eye-witness account, if otherwise unassailable, may not simply be thrown away for its inconsistency with the opinion evidence. But when eyewitnesses account suffers from doubt, this inconsistency gains a considerable weight. The presence of Kunita and Subhash at the spot in addition to Manohar has been claimed as all the three were engaged in harvesting Lobia It is stated that the bundle of lobia and the sickles have been found lying at the spot after the murder. The police, however, found only one sickle and no lobia bundle. THIS casts another shadow on the acceptability of the prosecution story that three persons were engaged in harvesting the crop. When the dead body of Subhash was found near the field, his presence cannot be ruled doubt. The only logical conclusion would be that other two persons, the father and the sister of Subhash, must have arrived subsequently. THIS explains the discrepancy in their statements. THIS necessiated the writing of two first information reports and this again causes inconsistency between the medical evidence and the eye-witness account. The doctor is an independent witness. He has no reason to describe any injury as one not caused by stab. His cross-examination indicates that he was fully aware of the difference between stabbing injuries and incised injuries. Thus, the inconsistency in the medical evidence and the eye-witness account might be a stumbling block against accepting the prosecution story. P.W. 9 Rajesh Kumar Mittal, was the Investigating Officer. He went to the spot and held inquest on the dead-body of Subhash. It was sent for postmortem examination through Mohan Lal and Rajbal. The dead body was received on 14.7.1983. He received the wearing apparels of Subhash (through Mohan LaI and Rajbal). The doctor, however, has not stated that he made over any dress material to these constables before or after the post-mortem examination. Although a sickle was found at the spot, the Investigating Officer did not seize it. He did not indicate in the description of the spot as to where the sickle was found. We have already discussed this point in the earlier paragraph. The doubt becomes more grave due to non-seizure of this sickle. He did not seize any harvest of lobia. The panchayat nama was prepared after lodging of the first information report. He did not indicate in the description of the spot as to where the sickle was found. We have already discussed this point in the earlier paragraph. The doubt becomes more grave due to non-seizure of this sickle. He did not seize any harvest of lobia. The panchayat nama was prepared after lodging of the first information report. Curiously enough, it did not indicate the injuries having been caused by ballam which also suggested that the panchayat nama was prepared even before lodging of the first information report. The written report at the police station was changed to suit the findings of the doctor regarding the nature of the injuries. 13. In addition to Manohar and Kunita, three more witnesses were named as persons having seen the incident. They were Nathu, Chhidda and Jaipal. The INvestigating Officer had examined the three witnesses and they were shown as charge-sheet witnesses also. This would suggest that they must have claimed to have seen some part or the other of the incident. The prosecution did not come forward with any proper explanation for their non-examination. Chhidda was examined as a defence witness and he was cross-examined by prosecution but nothing was asked from him about the incident. The prosecution remained confined to and satisfied with the answer from him as to whether the written report, the second first information report, was true. 14. A doubt is to be a reasonable one before a prosecution case is discarded on the basis of that doubt. The reasonableness depends on the circumstances of each case and the test may be to see whether any other theory is possible due to that doubt. In the case at our hands, the presence of two eyewitnesses is doubted as the prosecution failed to prove that there were three sickles to harvest lobia at the spot, as it was claimed that the witnesses were there for such harvest. There arises a further doubt for the apparent discrepancy in the nature of the injuries caused, as indicated in the eye-witnesses account and the medical evidence. There is further discrepancy concerning the existence of two reports made to the police station wherein there is substantial difference on the question of nature of the weapons. There was difference in the panchayat nama and the first information report so far the use of weapons for causing the injuries is concerned. There is further discrepancy concerning the existence of two reports made to the police station wherein there is substantial difference on the question of nature of the weapons. There was difference in the panchayat nama and the first information report so far the use of weapons for causing the injuries is concerned. There was non-examination of independent witnesses whose presence was accepted by father and sister of the deceased who were highly interested witnesses. Considering all these circumstances, it must be held that the doubt, having arisen on the question of the acceptability or reliability of the prosecution story, is of such nature which is not only a reasonable one but which also reinforces the theory that Manohar and Kunita were not there at the spot at the time of the murder of Subhash. 15. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence of all the six persons is set aside. They are found not guilty and acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.