JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Kalyan Prasad alongwith his wife appellant Smt. Dulari and his nephew appellant Madan Mohan faced trial for offences under Section 302, IPC in the alternative u/s. 302/34 and u/s. 447, IPC, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, who by the impugned judgment dated 18.3.93 convicted Kalyan for offences under Sections 302, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for seven years. The learned trial Judge, however, acquitted appellants Madan Mohan and Smt. Dulari for offences under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC but found them guilty for offence under Section 324, IPC and sentenced each one of them to simple imprisonment for one month. All the appellants have been also convicted under Section 447, IPC and each one of them has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Stated in succinct relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that in the morning of 3.7.1988, deceased Hiralal was removing the dried stem of plants from his field situated in the jungle of village Dughati. At about 9.00 a.m. appellant Kalyan Prasad, armed with a `dharia, Madanmohan having a `gandasi', Smt. Dulari armed with a daranti and appellants father Kishori armed with a lathi criminally trespassed into field of the deceased and they caused grievous and simple injuries on the latter's head, neck and other parts of his body, with the result that his general condition became precarious and critical. A written report Ex.P. 1 of the incident was lodged by Ramesh (PW 1), brother of the deceased, on the same day at 3.00 p.m. at Police Station Hindaun City, whereupon FIR Ex.P 2 for offences under Sections 447/307, 323/34, IPC was registered. Mukat Behari ASI (PW 10) rushed to the place of occurrence, where he found injured Hiralal lying in a pator situated in his field. Since his condition was serious, he was immediately sent to the Government Hospital Hindaun, where Dr. Shrinarainlal Bhardwaj (PW 12) declared him dead. 3. Mukatbehari ASI (PW 10) prepared site plan Ex.P 3 and lifted sample of blood stained soil and control sample of soil vide seizure memo Ex.P 6 and P 9 respectively. Since his condition was serious, he was immediately sent to the Government Hospital Hindaun, where Dr. Shrinarainlal Bhardwaj (PW 12) declared him dead. 3. Mukatbehari ASI (PW 10) prepared site plan Ex.P 3 and lifted sample of blood stained soil and control sample of soil vide seizure memo Ex.P 6 and P 9 respectively. Offence under Section 302, IPC was added and further investigation was conducted by Rajendra Singh (PW 13), who prepared inquest report Ex.P 4 dated 4.7.88, memo of dead body Ex.P. 5. He also recorded statements of the alleged eye witnesses. 4. Dr. Narainlal (PW 11), who conducted medico-legal autopsy and prepared post-mortem report Ex.P 11, found following external and internal injuries on the person of Hiralal:- 1. Oblique lacerated wound 11/2"x ⅓"x 1/4" with contused irregular margins on the left parietal region posterior part. 2. Oblique lacerated wound 2"x ⅕"x ⅕" on the left parietal region just anterior to injury No. 1. Margin contused and irregular. 3. Transverse lacerated wound with contused irregular stellate shaped 3/4"x ⅕"x ⅕" on the right parietal region 1/2" apart from injury No. 1 inner and just on the right side of midline. 4. Transverse abrasion 1/4"x 1/10" on the forehead on the right side, there is echhymosis on both the lids of the right eye and the sclera of the right eye. Bleeding through both the nostrils which is mixed with watery discharge. 5. Abrasion ⅕"x ⅕" on the bridge of nose. 6. Oblique incised wound 11/2"x ⅕"x ⅕" on the left mastoid with tapering on, the lower lid. Margins regular and clean cut. 7. Oblique incised wound on the left side of neck on the outer and back aspect on the sterno mastoid 21/2"x 1/4"x 1/2" with tailing on the upper end in the form of an abrasion reaching upto the left ear 4" long. Margins of the wound clean cut and regular. Sterno mastoid muscle partly cut. Carotid vessels not cut. Jugular vessels not cut. 8. Abrasion deep 11/2"x 1/2" on the left side of neck, front and lower parts, (left supra clavicular region middle portion). 9. Oblique deep abrasion 6"x 1/4" on the left scapular region upper part of the dorsal aspect of the left upper arm upper 1 /3rd. 10. Transverse incised wound 11/2"x 1/2"x 1/4" on the left scapular region lower part with abrasion on the both ends 21/2" long. 11. 9. Oblique deep abrasion 6"x 1/4" on the left scapular region upper part of the dorsal aspect of the left upper arm upper 1 /3rd. 10. Transverse incised wound 11/2"x 1/2"x 1/4" on the left scapular region lower part with abrasion on the both ends 21/2" long. 11. Transverse liner abrasion 4" long on the left scapular region 2" above injury No. 10. 12. Oblique liner abrasion 3" long on the left scapular region just above injury No. 11. 13. Vertical abrasion 4"x ⅕" on the left side of mid back. 14. Oblique incised wound 5"x ⅕" x ⅕" on the mid back reaching upto midline. 15. Transverse abrasion 5" long and linear on the left loin. 16. Transverse sup. abrasion 3" long and linear just below injury No. 15. 17. Transverse sup. abrasion 2"x 1/2" on the left lower back. Corresponding tears for injury No. 2 and 10 present on the kurta, while that of No. 14 in both Kurta and the baniyan which he is putting on. On dissection the doctor found huge haemotoma over the scalp, right parietal, frontal and temporal regions and extensive fixtured fracture of right parietal and frontal bones from posterior part of left parietal bone crossing the mailline reaching upto the orbital plate of right frontal bone. There was massive Sub dural and extra dural haemotoma with clots of blood. The brain was also congested from both the sides. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to injury Nos. 1, 2, & 3 on the head. 5. Appellants Kalyan Prasad and Madanmohan were arrested on 28.7.88 vide arrest memos Ex.P 12 and P 13 respectively. It is alleged that on 6.8.88 appellant Kalyan Prasad in pursuance to his information Ex.P 15 and appellant Madanmohan in pursuance to his information Ex.P 14, got recovered blood stained `dharia' and blood stained `gandasi' from the pator of the temple of co-accused Kishorilal Pujari situated in village Singhan Meena, which were seized and sealed vide recovery memoes Ex.P 7 and R 8 respectively. Blood stained dharia, gandasi sample of blood stained soil, controlled sample of soil, blood stained kurta baniyan (vest), dhoti of the deceased were sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. However, the prosecution did not tender report of the State FSL. Blood stained dharia, gandasi sample of blood stained soil, controlled sample of soil, blood stained kurta baniyan (vest), dhoti of the deceased were sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. However, the prosecution did not tender report of the State FSL. After usual investigation, challan was filed against these appellants only in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, who in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions. No challan was filed against co-accused Kishorilal Pujari. The appellants denied the indictment and demanded trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC categorically denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that due to animosity, a false case has been foisted against them. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. 6. After trial, the learned trial Judge held that Ramesh (PW 1) and Smt. Sushila (PW 2) (brother and widow of the deceased respectively) were not the eye witnesses. He however, relying upon the testimony of Girraj (PW 3), Pankhi (PW 4) and Smt. Rampyari (PW 7), medical evidence and the statements of the Investigating Officers, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that appellants Madanmohan and Smt. Dularj had common intention with appellant Kalyanprasad to commit the murder of Hiralal and as such, he acquitted them for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. He however, convicted appellant Kalyanprasad for offences under Sections 302 & 447 IPC, and Madanmohan and Smt. Dulari for offences under Section 324 and 447 IPC and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the trial court in extenso. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the appellants that in this case FIR is concocted and fabricated document, which was drawn with due deliberation after consulting an advocate. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay, which has not been explained. Even in the FIR neither the motive for offence has been disclosed nor names of the eye witnesses mentioned nor overt-acts of the assailants have been assigned. During investigation, a false case has been cooked up against the appellants. Thus the prosecution has not come with clean hands. Even in the FIR neither the motive for offence has been disclosed nor names of the eye witnesses mentioned nor overt-acts of the assailants have been assigned. During investigation, a false case has been cooked up against the appellants. Thus the prosecution has not come with clean hands. The learned trial Judge has not carefully scanned and assessed statements of the alleged eye-witnesses Girraj (PW 3), Pankhi (PW 4) and Rampyari (PW 7) and from their testimony it is amply borne out that they had not witnessed the alleged incident. Moreover, their statements are replete with material improvements, major contradictions and significant inconsistencies. Hence they are not reliable witnesses. Besides this, there is material variance between the ocular and medical evidence as the deceased did not receive any injury by a sharp weapon on his head, which as per statement of Dr. Narainlal (PW 11) had proved fatal. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that the alleged recoveries of dharia and gandasi at the instances of appellants Kalyan Prasad and Madanmohan are also futile and meaningless because the prosecution deliberately did not file the report of the FSL. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, asserted that the prosecution has miserably failed to successfully bring home any offence beyond reasonable doubt against any of the accused appellants. 8. On the other hand, Shri S.M. Podar, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasons given by the learned trial Judge. 9. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. In this case, Ramesh (PW 1) brother of the deceased submitted written report Ex.P 1 before Mukut Behari ASI (PW 10) who was the then Incharge of the Police Station Hindaun City on 3.7.88 at 3.00 p.m. In the FIR, it was alleged that the appellants alongwith co-accused Kishori, who were armed with dharia, gandasi and lathi inflicted grievous injuries to Hiralal, who sustained injuries on his head, neck and other part of the body. It was also mentioned by Ramesh in report Ex.P 1 that the appellants did not allow him to bring Hiralal (Injured at that time) to the Govt. Hospital, Hindaun and that if immediate medical aid was given to him (Hiralal), he could be saved. It was also mentioned by Ramesh in report Ex.P 1 that the appellants did not allow him to bring Hiralal (Injured at that time) to the Govt. Hospital, Hindaun and that if immediate medical aid was given to him (Hiralal), he could be saved. It is pertinent to note that in FIR Ex.P. 1, the time of the alleged occurrence has not been mentioned, nor names of the eye witnesses to the incident have been disclosed nor any overt act of the assailants has been assigned. 10. Ramesh (PW 1) in his police statement dated 3.7.88 Ex.D. 1 at portion A to B clearly stated that a about 10/10.30 a.m. when he was in the village, some persons told him that the appellants had caused injuries to his brother Hiralal in his field; that thereupon he rushed to the place of incident, where he found Hiralal lying unconscious. However, during trial, he unsuccessfully tried to pose himself as an eye-witness and stated that at the time of the incident, he was at a distance of 30-40 ft. away from Hiralal. The learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved testimony of this witness and held that he was not an eye witness to the incident. 11. Ramesh (PW 1) deposed that within half an hour of the incident, he proceeded for Hindaun and reached there in another half an hour, where he went to the office of an advocate Shri Murarilal Sharma, who had scribed Ex.P 1. A careful perusal of the written report Ex.P 1 indicates that 3.7.87 has been written with a different ink whereas the entire report has been written by different ink. Ramesh (PW 1) pleaded his ignorance as to who had jotted down the date 3.7.88 on report Ex.P 1. He has also not stated about the time when he had submitted report Ex.P 1 at Hindaun Police Station. However, as per testimony of Mukut Behari (PW 10) ASI, the report Ex.P 1 was submitted before him at 3 p.m. on 3.7.88. Mukutbehari stated that after registering the case, he reached the place of incident on the same day at 4.40 p.m. Since the condition of Harilal was precarious, he had sent him to Hindaun Hospital. However, as per testimony of Mukut Behari (PW 10) ASI, the report Ex.P 1 was submitted before him at 3 p.m. on 3.7.88. Mukutbehari stated that after registering the case, he reached the place of incident on the same day at 4.40 p.m. Since the condition of Harilal was precarious, he had sent him to Hindaun Hospital. He further stated that on the same day, he inspected the site, prepared site plan Ex.P. 3 and lifted sample of blood stained soil and controlled soil vide memoes Ex.P 6 and P 9 respectively. On the other hand, Dr. Narainlal (PW 11) deposed that Hiralal was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Hindaun as dead and that the immediately informed the S.H.O. PS. Hindaun only about this fact at 8.30 p.m. vide his letter Ex.P 10. He emphatically asserted that had the dead body of Hiralal been brought to the Primary Health Centre, through police, he would not have informed the S.H.O. about it vide his letter Ex.P 10. Therefore, if Mukutbehari (PW 10) had reached the place of incident on 3.7.88 at 4.40 p.m. and sent the injured Hiralal in police jeep to the Primary Health Centre, Hindaun, he would have definitely sent a requisition also to the doctor but he did not do so. As per statement of Dr. Narainlal (PW 11) the dead body of Hiralal was brought to the hospital and that case was not referred to him by the police and that is why he had intimated the police vide his letter Ex.P 10. All these facts make the prosecution story suspicious, and it appears that the FIR Ex.P. 1 was not lodged at police station at 3 p.m. on 3.7.88. Besides this, the alleged incident, as per testimony of Girraj (PW 3) Pankhi (PW 4) and Rampyari (PW 7) took place at about 8 or 9 a.m. The police station Hindaun is situated at a distance of 11-12 kms. away from the place of incident. Neither Ramesh (PW. 1) nor any of the prosecution witnesses has stated that he was detained by the appellants and was not allowed by them to take the injured Hiralal to Hindaun. Hospital. away from the place of incident. Neither Ramesh (PW. 1) nor any of the prosecution witnesses has stated that he was detained by the appellants and was not allowed by them to take the injured Hiralal to Hindaun. Hospital. Still then, such an allegation was made against the appellants in written report Ex.P. 1, wherein neither time of the alleged incident was disclosed, nor it was mentioned as to which of the appellants was armed with what kind of weapon nor their overt-act was disclosed nor names of the alleged eye witnesses were disclosed. It may be mentioned that till the time of the report Ex.P 1 was written either it was not known as to who were the eye witnesses or which of the appellants had inflicted the injuries to the deceased or all the material facts were deliberately kept vague, and incomplete so that the prosecution story could suitably be altered, improved or embellished during investigation. Ramesh (PW 1) admitted that it took him only half an hour to reach Hindaun. When he was informed of the incident at about 10.30 a.m., then the report could have been lodged at the police station within an hour or so. On the other hand, report Ex.P 1 is alleged to have been submitted at the police station at 3.00 p.m. The delay has also not been explained at all, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. 12. In the FIR motive for the alleged crime has also not been disclosed. Girraj (PW 3) was examined by the investigating officer after two months of the alleged incident. Rajendra Singh (PW 13) SHO, the investigating officer stated that since Girraj was out of village, his statement was recorded after two months. On the other hand, Girraj (PW 3) deposed that after the incident, when the police reached the place of incident, he was very much present there and that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer on the same day and that thereafter he was never examined by the police. Girraj also deposed that after the incident, he was residing in his village continuously. In such circumstances, the explanation given by Rajendra Singh (PW 13) about the delayed examination of Girraj (PW 3) under Section 161 Cr.PC is far from satisfactory. Non-explanation of the delayed examination of Girraj therefore, creates a strong suspicion against the prosecution. 13. Girraj also deposed that after the incident, he was residing in his village continuously. In such circumstances, the explanation given by Rajendra Singh (PW 13) about the delayed examination of Girraj (PW 3) under Section 161 Cr.PC is far from satisfactory. Non-explanation of the delayed examination of Girraj therefore, creates a strong suspicion against the prosecution. 13. Girraj (PW 3) Stated that on the ill-fated day, he was ploughing his field, which is situated near the field of deceased Hiralal who was cutting dried stems in his field. He heard the noise raised by the appellants and Hiralal. He saw appellant Kalyan Prasad inflicting a blow from the reverse side of `dharia' on the head of Hiralal and another from its blade side on the left side of his neck. Appellant Smt. Dulari dealt a daranti blow on the eyes and nose of Hiralal, while appellant Madanmohan inflicted two gandasi blows on the back and the shoulder of the deceased. Girraj further deposed that he alongwith Pankhi and Shrilal uncle of the deceased tried to rescue Hiralal but the appellant Kalyan Prasad waived his `dharia' towards them. Thereupon Shrilal ran away. However, in his cross-examination, this witness admitted that since he was ploughing his field, his attention was drawn only when Hiralal had fallen down after receiving injuries. He admitted that when he reached near Hiralal, the latter had already sustained injuries and that the appellants had fled away from the place of incident. He deposed that he alongwith Pankhi lifted injured Hiralal from his field and took him in his Pator and that Hiralal was bleeding but his clothes were not smeared with blood. At that time, Hiralal was alive but he was not in a position to speak. He deposed that since no means of transport was available they could not take Hiralal to the Hospital at Hindaun. 14. It may be pointed out that Girraj (PW 3) in his police statement Ex.D. 2 simply gave out an omnibus version to the effect that the appellants, who were armed with `dharia', `gandasi' and `daranti' had inflicted multiple injuries to the deceased. He had not assigned any specific overt act to the appellants. It was also not stated by him in his police statement Ex.D.2 that Kalyan Prasad had inflicted dharia blows on the heads of Hiralal from its reverse side. As per testimony of Dr. He had not assigned any specific overt act to the appellants. It was also not stated by him in his police statement Ex.D.2 that Kalyan Prasad had inflicted dharia blows on the heads of Hiralal from its reverse side. As per testimony of Dr. Narainlal (PW 11), he did not find any incised wound on the head of Hiralal. On the other hand, Injury Nos. 1, 2, & 3 detailed in post mortem report Ex.P 1 were lacerated wounds which were caused by some blunt object. Hence it is abundantly apparent that Girraj (PW 3) has tried to improve his statement during trial and invented a new story that Kalyan Prasad had inflicted `dharia' blow from its reverse side on the head of Hiralal, to suit the medical evidence. This improves statement of Girraj and, therefore, lacks credence. He does not appear to be a reliable witness. 15. In the FIR Ex.P 1 it was mentioned that the appellants were also armed with lathi and inflicted injuries to Hiralal. Hence this possibility can not be ruled out that injury Nos. 1, 2, & 3, which proved fatal, could have been caused by lathi. The police however, did not file challan against co-accused Kishori, who is alleged to have been armed with a lathi. 16. The name of Pankhi (PW 4), who as per his statement was working as a partner in the field, does not find mention in the report Ex.P 1. He deposed that at the time of the alleged incident, he saw Hiralal working in his field and that latters wife and Children were not with him at that time, whereas Sushila (PW 2) deposed that she was present at the time of the incident and was assisting her husband Hiralal in cutting the dried stems of the plants. Pankhi stated that the appellants Kalyan Prasad, Madanmohan and Dulari, who were armed with `dharia', `gandasi' and `daranti' respectively, came to the field of the deceased and that he had seen them attacking the deceased; that appellant Kalyan Prasad Inflicted injuries on the head and neck of Hiralal, that Madanmohan caused injuries on the nose and eyes of Hiralal and that no person came to rescue Hiralal. On the other hand, Girraj stated that he alongwith Pankhi, Shrilal had gone to rescue Hiralal. 17. On the other hand, Girraj stated that he alongwith Pankhi, Shrilal had gone to rescue Hiralal. 17. Pankhi (PW 4) further deposed that when he came near the appellants, they fled away, and that when he reached near Hiraial, he found that the latter had already died. He stated that thereafter, the dead body of Hiralal was kept in the `Pator'. In his cross examination, he specifically admitted that his attention was diverted only when there was exchange of abuses between Hiralal and the appellants and that immediately thereafter, the appellants had inflicted injuries on the person of Hiralal. Pankhi deposed that Shrilal, who was standing in his field requested the appellants to stop beating with folded hands but they did not accede to his request. He deposed that when he reached near Hiralal, the appellants had already crossed a distance of about 50 yards, and that after the incident, he returned to his field. He clearly stated that he did not inform the family members of Hiralal or any other villagers about the incident. He deposed that Ramesh (PW 1) was at the place of incident till 2 p.m. on that day, whereas Ramesh stated that he reached Hindaun on that day at about 10-11 in the noon. Pankhi admitted that he was partner of Shrilal. Pankhi has not stated that appellant Kalyan Prasad gave `dharia' blow from its reverse side on the head of Hiralal and another `dharia blow on his neck from its edge side. The presence of this witness (PW 4) appears to us doubtful. Besides this, even if he was present at the time of the incident, he did neither inform any family member of Hiralal nor any other villagers, instead he continued to work in his field. His statement is quite vague. In our considered opinion, he is not a reliable witness and the learned trial Judge has committed an error in relying on his testimony. 18. The name of Rampyari (PW 7) also does not find mention in written report Ex.P 1. She is an old lady. In her police statement Ex.D. 3, recorded on 5.7.88 her age was mentioned as 70 years. However, during trial, she stated that her age was 60 years. 18. The name of Rampyari (PW 7) also does not find mention in written report Ex.P 1. She is an old lady. In her police statement Ex.D. 3, recorded on 5.7.88 her age was mentioned as 70 years. However, during trial, she stated that her age was 60 years. She deposed that on that day of the incident, she was grazing' her she goats across the `nala', that at about 0 a.m., she heard alarm raised by Hiralal, that at that time, wife of Hiralal namely Sushila (PW 2) was not present there, that appellants Kalyan Prasad, Madanmohan and Dulari inflicted injuries to Hiralal with the result, he fell down. She deposed that she did not know at to why the appellants had caused injuries to Hiralal, and that she was at a distance of 30-35 feet from the place of occurrence. However, in her cross examination, she specifically admitted that she had not seen the alleged incident, that her attention was diverted to the field of Hiralal after hearing his noise and at that time, she had seen the appellants from their back side at a distance of 2-3 fields away from the place of occurrence. She deposed that she was at a distance of about 100-150 paces from the places of occurrence, when her attention was diverted and that after the said incident, she continued grazing her she goat and did not inform about the incident to any body including her family members. She further deposed that Shrilal, Pankhi and Girraj did not go to the place of incident, that they were in their respective fields and that nobody took care of Hiralal. She admitted that she had seen the appellants on that day for the first time and that too from their back side. Therefore, statement of this witness (PW 7) is inconsistent and self-contradictory and vague. She has not assigned any individual overt act to the appellants. On the other hand, she had admitted that she had not seen the incident. Hence in our considered opinion, she is not at all a reliable witness. Moreover, her presence at the time of incident, is also doubtful. 19. The statements of Girraj (PW 3), Pankhi (PW 4) and Rampyari (PW 7) are replete with significant inconsistencies material contradictions and substantial improvements. Hence in our considered opinion, she is not at all a reliable witness. Moreover, her presence at the time of incident, is also doubtful. 19. The statements of Girraj (PW 3), Pankhi (PW 4) and Rampyari (PW 7) are replete with significant inconsistencies material contradictions and substantial improvements. The learned trial Judge, has thus not carefully and correctly scanned, scrutinised, analysed and assessed their statements and has committed an error of fact in blindly relying on their testimony, which does not inspire any confidence. 20. Dr. Narainlal (PW 11) clearly stated that he could not say as to which of the injuries Nos. 1, 2 & 3 detailed in post mortem report Ex.P 11 found on the head of the deceased, was fatal and sufficient to cause death. None of the alleged eye witnesses has stated that appellant Kalyan Prasad had inflicted three injuries on the head of Hiralal (deceased). 21. The alleged recoveries of `gandasi' and `dharia' at the instances of appellants Madanmohan and Kalyan Prasad respectively vide recovery memoes Ex.P 7 and P. 8 are also meaningless because there is not an iota of evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the seals of those weapons were not tampered with and remained in tact till they reached office of the FSL. Besides this, chemical and serologist examination reports of the articles have also not been tendered in evidence. Thus these recoveries do not connect the appellants with the crime. 22. In the FIR there is no mention that appellant Dulari was armed with `daranti'. Besides this, as per testimony of Dr. Narainlal (PW 11), injuries on the nose and eyes of Hiralal were not caused by daranti. Thus, testimony of the eye witnesses does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. On the other hand, there is material variance between ocular and medical evidence. The learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored all these material factors. Non production of alleged eye-witness Shrilal also raises an adverse inference against the prosecution. 23. The evidence regarding motive of the alleged crime is also inconsistent, inconclusive and unworthy of credence. Thus, on the basis of such vague, incomplete inconsistent, lame, lifeless and unreliable evidence the prosecution has pulpably failed to establish that appellant, Kalyan Prasad was the author of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased on his head or had intentionally caused injuries to him by dharia resulting into his death. Thus, on the basis of such vague, incomplete inconsistent, lame, lifeless and unreliable evidence the prosecution has pulpably failed to establish that appellant, Kalyan Prasad was the author of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased on his head or had intentionally caused injuries to him by dharia resulting into his death. The prosecution has also failed to successfully bring home offence under Section 324, IPC against appellants, Madanmohan and Dulari and for offence under Section 447, IPC against any of the appellants. Therefore, conviction and sentences against them cannot be sustained. 24. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hindaun City by his judgment dated 18.3.93 against the appellant are set aside and appellant Kalyan is acquitted of offences under Sections 302 & 447, IPC and appellants Madan Mohan and Smt. Dulari are acquitted of the offence u/ss. 324 & 447, IPC. Appellants Madan Mohan & Smt. Dulari are on bail and their bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appellant Kalyan is at present lodged in Central Jail. Jaipur and he should be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur be informed accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******