Honble GUPTA, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.4.1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case no. 13/79 whereby he convicted the appellants as follows :– Ladu Ram & u/Sec. 148 IPC 6 months R.I. Rawat Ram u/S. 342 IPC 1 month S.I. u/S. 302 read Imprisonment with Sec. 149 IPC for life Tiku Ram, u/S. 147 IPC 6 months R.I. Bhika Ram u/S. 342 IPC 1 month S.I. S/o Rameshwar u/s. 302 read Imprisonment Bhera, Mala Ram & Bhika Ram with Sec. 149 IPC for life (2). The prosecution case, unfolded in the statement of Sharvan dated 7.12.1978, was that his father Phoosaram was returning from their field to his house,and he was following him at a distance of 50 `Pavandas. As his father reached in front of the door of the house of Rameshwar Jat, Bhika. Tiku, Rawat Ram and Ladu Ram came out of the house, and caught hold of his father and took him dragging in the `Pol where Bhera, Bhika and Mala Ram Jat were also sitting. As he went there, he was threatened by the accused that if he entered the house he would bekilled. The accused closed the door of the `Pol and started giving beatings to his father. He heard the cries of his father who was imploring not to beat him. He shouted for help but nobody came to his rescue. After some time, the seven accused came out of the house dragging his father and dropped him in the street and went away towards the house of Ladu Ram. At that time Rawat had a `Gandasi.Ladu had a `Kulhari and the other accused had lathis in their hands. After the accu- sed went away, he and Ramchander went to his father, who was lying in the pool of blood. His father told him that the enemies had cut him and his chest had been broken, and then he died. On this report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 342 and 302 IPC was registered. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. P.N.Bhatnagar, P.W. 4 on 8.12.1978. After the completion of the investigation, seven accused were challaned. (3). Charges under Sec. 148, 302/149 IPC and 342 IPC were framed against all the seven accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The trial court examined two persons as court witnesses. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. P.N.Bhatnagar, P.W. 4 on 8.12.1978. After the completion of the investigation, seven accused were challaned. (3). Charges under Sec. 148, 302/149 IPC and 342 IPC were framed against all the seven accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The trial court examined two persons as court witnesses. Accused in their statements under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. They examined eight witnesses including one doctor. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge heldthat Phoosaram had met homicidal death. He further held that seven accused were the persons who had inflicted injuries to Phoosaram. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as above. (4). Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have been heard and record perused. (5). Mr. Gaur contended that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the two eye witnesses, who are close relation of the deceased and hence no reliance should be placed on their testimony. Pointing out that independent witnesses have not been examined he urged that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. He submitted that no blood was found in the streetwhere Phoosaram is said to have been dropped and that the evidence regarding the recovery of the blood stained `Lewda from the `Pol of the house of the accused is not believable. It was urged that accused Tiku s/o Rameshwar and Bhika s/o Rameshwar Jat were not prosecuted by the deceased and, therefore, they had no reason to take part in the occurrence. Mr. Gaur also pointed out that the deceasedhad dozens of enemies and, submitted that it is possible that persons, other than the accused, had inflicted blows to him. He urged that the defence plea, that accused Bhika s/o Surja, Bhika s/o Rameshwar, Tiku and Bhera were not in the village at the time of occurrence should be accepted. Pointing out that the F.I.R. was sent to the Magistrate after 5 days of its registration, he canvassed that it shouldbe presumed that it is post investigation document and was drawn up after deliberations. It was also pointed out that no external mark of violence was found on the chest or back of the deceased and, submitted that the accused cannot be held liable to causing fractures of the ribs of the deceased. (6). On the other hand Mr. It was also pointed out that no external mark of violence was found on the chest or back of the deceased and, submitted that the accused cannot be held liable to causing fractures of the ribs of the deceased. (6). On the other hand Mr. Mehta tried to support the judgment of the trialcourt. He drew our attention to the complaint Ex. P.23 to emphasize that the accused had already threatened Phoosaram that they would kill him. (7). The learned Sessions Judge though noticed various discrepancies in the statements of the two eye witnesses, and even observed that they were not speaking the truth, yet held that the 7 accused had given beatings to Phoosaram.He has relied on the following circumstances: (i) Blood was found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused; (ii) Blood was found in the `Lewdas (Plaster) collected from the house of Rameshwar, and blood was noticed at some places in that house; (iii) The deceased had filed criminal case under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh; (iv) The deceased had uttered the words that the enemies had killed him; and (v) The injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by the weapons said to have been used. (8). The main-stay of the case is the evidence of Shravan (PW 1) and Ramchander (PW 7) who have claimed to have witnessess the occurrence. Shravan (PW 1) has deposed that he and his father Phoosaram had returned from the field and his father was going 20 `Pavandas ahead of him. When they reached near the house of Rameshwar, the 7 accused having axe, `Gandasi and `Lathis in their hands, caught hold of his father, dragged him, and started giving beatings. Ladu and Rawata landed axe and `Gandasi blows to the head of his father and the other accused gave `lathi blows to him and when he (witness) tried to intervene, the accused told him that if he intervened, he would also be killed. Thereafter, the accu-sed took away Phoosaram dragging inside the house of Rameshwar and closed the door. He heard from ouside the out-cries of his father. He, thereupon, rushed to the house of his nephew Ramchander and told him that his father was being beaten, on which Ramchander replied that he had also seen. Thereafter, the accu-sed took away Phoosaram dragging inside the house of Rameshwar and closed the door. He heard from ouside the out-cries of his father. He, thereupon, rushed to the house of his nephew Ramchander and told him that his father was being beaten, on which Ramchander replied that he had also seen. After some time, the accused persons brought Phoosaram dragging and dropped him in the street and they weregiving beatings to him at that time also. After the accused left the scene of occurrence, he went to his father who told him that the enemies had beaten him and his chest had been broken. (9). Ramchander (PW 7) has deposed that at about 4 p.m. when he was sitting at his house, he heard some noise from the side of the house of Rameshwar Jatand he saw that the 7 accused were beating Phoosaram in the `Pol of Rameshwar. Ladu Ram inflicted two axe blows to his head and one `Gandasi blow was inflicted to his head by accused Rawata Ram. Rawata also inflicted one blow to his right arm and Ladu Ram gave `Gandasi blow to his thigh. Other accused were beating him by `lathis. Shravan and he had heard the out-cries of Phoosaram who wasimploring by saying ``Mat Maro, Mat Maro but at the same time the accused were shouting ``Dushman Ko Mal Lo, ``Badh Do. The accused thereafter brought Phoosaram dragging outside the house and dropped him in the street. (10). There are obvious discrepancies in the statements of two witnesses on very material points. We shall point out some of them. (i) According to Shravan (PW 1) when the accused brought Phoosaram from the house of Rameshwar dragging, he was being given beatings. He is emphatic when he says that as many as 7 to 8 injuries were caused to his father by the accused when he was being brought in the street and dropped. As against this, Ramchander does not depose that any injury was inflicted by the accused to Phoosaram when he was brought back in the street. Rather Ramchanders statement is categorical that no injury was inflicted to Phoosaram outside the house of Rameshwar and the accused were only holding him at that time. Obviously, this discrepancy in the statements of the two eye witnesses is not very material point. Rather Ramchanders statement is categorical that no injury was inflicted to Phoosaram outside the house of Rameshwar and the accused were only holding him at that time. Obviously, this discrepancy in the statements of the two eye witnesses is not very material point. (ii) Ramchander (PW 7) deposes that after the accused persons brought Phoosaram outside the house of Rameshwar and dropped him in the street, they boasted by uttering the words ``Hamne to Mar Diya. This important fact, however, is not stated by PW 1 Shravan. It is to be noticed that according to Ramchander the accused uttered those words, addressing him and Shravan. If it was so, Shravan was bound to hear those words. This is again a material discrepancy in the statements of the two eye witnesses. (iii) According to Ramchander (PW 7) when Phoosaram was inside the house of Rameshwar, accused were shouting ``Dushman ko Mar Lo, ``Bad Do. However, this important fact is not stated by Shravan (PW 1). (11). The aforesaid discrepancies in the statements of two eye witnesses are not on insignificant aspect of the occurrence. They render the testimony of these witnesses doubtful. It seems that both the witnesses were not present there and they had not seen the occurrence. (12). A reading of the statement of Shravan reveals that he has made improvements during trial. We point out some of them. In the FIR Ex.P/1 and the police statement D/1 Shravan had not stated that 7 accused had come out of the house of Rameshwar and had dragged Phoosaram to that house. At the investigation stage the version in this regard was that only 4 accused had come out of the house andthey had dragged Phoosaram inside the house. At that stage even it was not stated that those four accused had weapons in their hands. As against this version Shravan deposes in the court statement that all the seven accused had come out of the house and dragged Phoosaram and that all of them had `Gandasi, axe and lathis in their hands at that time. Not only this, he even deposes that he had seen the accu-sed persons causing injuries by axe, `Gandasi and lathis to Phoosaram at that time. Similarly, Shravan deposes that when he tried to go near to his father to rescue him, the accused had threatened him that he would be killed. Not only this, he even deposes that he had seen the accu-sed persons causing injuries by axe, `Gandasi and lathis to Phoosaram at that time. Similarly, Shravan deposes that when he tried to go near to his father to rescue him, the accused had threatened him that he would be killed. This important fact was neither mentioned by him in the FIR Ex. P/1 nor in the police statement Ex.D/1. It is obvious that Shravan has made significant improvements in his statement. (13). The testimony of Shravan (PW 1) is also not consistent with the medical evidence produced in the case. According to Shravan, very many injuries were caused to Phoosaram by the sharp edged side of the axe and `Gandasi. He deposes tht he had seen the accused causing atleast 3 injuries to his fathers head and two injuries to his thigh and arm by the sharp side of the weapons. However, not a singleinjury, caused by sharp edged weapon was found on the parts of body of Phoosaram disclosed by Shravan when post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Bhatnagar (PW 4). According to Dr. Bhatnagar, there was only one incised wound on the left eye brow of the deceased and all other injuries were either abrasions or lacerated wounds. This is not a case where the witness is silent as tothe side of the weapon which had struck the victim. The witness is categorical when he says that the sharp side of the weapon had hit Phoosaram on his head, arm and thigh yet no injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found by the doctor. This clearly shows that the witness had not seen the occurrence. (14). The learned Sessions Judge though noticed this inconsistency in themedical evidence and the direct evidence, but tried to meet the argument by saying that the evidence of the medical officer is mere opinion. The medical officer is an expert, who possesses forensic knowledge. It is presumed that he examines the injuries with the help of instruments. His this expert opinion, that the particular injury was caused by sharp edged weapon or blunt weapon, or the injury was inci-sed wound or lacerated wound, cannot be lightly brushed aside. There is nothing to doubt the testimony of Dr. Bhatnagar when he deposes that the injuries on the head, arm and thighs were lacerated wounds. it is relevant to state that Dr. There is nothing to doubt the testimony of Dr. Bhatnagar when he deposes that the injuries on the head, arm and thighs were lacerated wounds. it is relevant to state that Dr. Bhatnagar was not novice when he had held autopsy on Phoosaram. He had experience of 5 years, and had occasion to conduct post mortem examinationsprior to his posting at Doongargarh. It is, thus, obvious that there is irreconciable inconsistency in the statements of Shravan and the medical evidence, which leads us to infer that Shravan had not witnessess the occurrence. (15). In this connection one important fact deserves notice. Shravan deposes that after the medical officer told him that Phoosaram had died, he rushed to thepolice station and there, the police recorded his statement. He further states that when he went to lodge a report to the police, Ramchander was also with him and they were at the police station for about 20 minutes. This clearly indicates that the FIR was lodged by Shravan at the police station. However, Fakrudeen (PW 8) deposes that on receiving the intimation from the medical officer, he went to the hospital and there he recorded the statement of Shravan Ex.P/2 which was treated as FIR. There is categorical statement of Shravan (PW 1) that he had gone to the police station and his statement was recorded there and thereafter the police went to the hospital, and there also his statement was recorded. It is obvious that before the statement Ex.P/1 was recorded, one statement of Shravan had already been recorded at the police station. Certainly that statement which was recorded prior in time at the Police Station, contained the first version of what Shravan knew. That statement has not been produced in the case. The defence is therefore justified in arguing that Shravan in that statement might not have disclosed himself as the eyewitness to the occurrence. (16). The contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that the statement Ex.P/1 which has been treated as FIR was not recorded at the time and the date written thereon. He invited our attention to this fact that the first information report Ex.P/22 was sent to the court of Magistrate on 12.12.78 i.e. 5 days afterthe registration of the case. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants was that the statement Ex.P/1 which has been treated as FIR was not recorded at the time and the date written thereon. He invited our attention to this fact that the first information report Ex.P/22 was sent to the court of Magistrate on 12.12.78 i.e. 5 days afterthe registration of the case. He also pointed out that the next FIR No. 177 was recorded at the police station on 8.12.78 at 8 p.m. and thus there were about 24 hours in which the police had ample time to concoct a story. (17). Sec. 157, Cr.P.C. mandates that the first information report should be forwarded to the Magistrate concerned forthwith. The accused have examined DW2 Laxminarayan, Clerk of the Magistrate concerned. Laxminarayan deposes that FIR No. 177 from Police Station, Doongargarh was received in the Court on 12.12.78 and he made entries of its receipt in the FIR Register Ex.9-A on the same day. The delay of 5 days in sending the FIR to the Magistrate thus remains unexplained. Fakrudeen admits that he was not aware if Ramchander and Shravan had gone toRatangarh on 8.12.78 and thereafter they lodged the report. The facts available on record lead us to infer that the FIR Ex.P/1 was not lodged on the date and time stated thereon and this document seems to have been prepared after the investigation made headway. This strengthen our finding that Shravan had not witnessed the occurrence. (18). Ramchander (PW 7) deposes that he had seen the accused persons inflicting injuries to Phoosaram when they were inside the house of Rameshwar. A perusal of the site inspection memo Ex.P/24 indicates that some marks were found inside the room of the house. The position of the house was that there was `Bakhal at the entry and then `Pol and then a room. It cannot be believed that anything which happened inside the room and the `Pol, could be viewed by Ramchander from his house. Obviously he has given false statement. (19). Both the witnesses depose that Phoosaram was brought by the accused and dropped in the street and there was profused bleeding from his injuries and blood had fallen where Phoosaram was dropped. However, when Fakrudeen, PW8 inspected the site, he did not find blood in the street. Obviously he has given false statement. (19). Both the witnesses depose that Phoosaram was brought by the accused and dropped in the street and there was profused bleeding from his injuries and blood had fallen where Phoosaram was dropped. However, when Fakrudeen, PW8 inspected the site, he did not find blood in the street. Fakrudeen deposes in clear terms that he did not find blood either in the `Bakhal or in the street. He however states that new earth appeared in the `Bakhal. The witnesses have tried to explain the non-existence of the blood in the street by saying that the wife of accused Tiku had cleaned the earth. But this explanation cannot be accepted in view of the factthat the two witnesses had not stated this fact in their police statements. Obviously, the witnesses have made improvements. The fact remains that no blood was found in the street where Phoosaram is said to have been dropped in injured condition. This circumstance indicates that the witnesses have belied when they deposed that they had seen the accused dropping the deceased in the street, and that the injuriesof Phoosaram were bleeding profusely. (20). The various discrepancies appearing in the statements of the two witne- sses, as also the improvements made by them and the inconsistency appearing in the direct evidence and the medical evidence, lead us to infer that Ramchander and Shravan had not witnessed the occurrence and they have given false statements. (21). It is significant to point out that no independent person who had seen the occurrence has been examined by the prosecution though it has come in the statement of Fakrudeen, I.O. (PW 8) that it appeared from his investigation that Tilok Brahmin, Mangu Lohar and Mangilal Brahmin had witnesses the occurrence. Fakrudeen admits that he had not interrogated any of these witnessed. The explanation given by him is that investigation was taken from him by the Dy. S.P. on 23.12.78. Be that as it may, the investigation remained with Fakrudeen for about 16 days but he did not interrogate the three persons whose names had appeared as eye witnesses in the investigation. It is obvious that the investigation of the casewas not fair. At the same time, the withholding of independent eye witnesses casts serious doubt in the prosecution case. (22). It is obvious that the investigation of the casewas not fair. At the same time, the withholding of independent eye witnesses casts serious doubt in the prosecution case. (22). As already stated, it has appeared in the statement of Fakrudeen that there were three persons, Tilok Ram, Mangilal Brahmin and Mangu Lohar who had witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution has not examined any of them. Thetrial Court thought it proper to call one of them as a Court witness. He is Tilok Ram, CW 1. He deposes that he had seen 4 accused Ladu, Rawata, Bheeka and Mala quarrelling with Phoosaram. According to him, he saw these persons beating Phoosaram and when he asked the 4 accused as to why they were beating him, they told that he abused them and he had lodged false case against them. He furtherdeposes that the 4 accused told him to leave the place and therefore he went away and informed Sugna d/o Phoosaram about the occurrence. Thus, according to this witness only 4 accused persons, Ladu, Mala, Rawta and Bheeka had given beatings to Phoosaram in the street near the house of Rameshwar. Tilok Ram also deposes that at that time the brother-in-law of Mangilal Patwari was sitting on the `Chabutraselling shoes. In the cross examination of this witness, it has come in clear terms that he did not see any weapon in the hands of the 4 accused persons. He further deposes that he did not see Shravan or Ramchander at the place of occurrence. (23). If we believe Tilok Ram, CW 1, it is certain that Shravan and Ramchander had not witnessed the occurrence. It further transpires that none of the 4 accusedhad any weapon in his hand and there was only manhandling. The injuries mentioned in the post mortem report were 13 in number; and six of them were lacerated wounds and one was incised wound. Such injuries could not be caused by manhandling. It is thus obvious that these injuries were not caused by 4 accused Ladu, Mala, Rawata and Bheeka Ram. It may be that there was some quarrel betweenthese 4 accused and the deceased outside the house of Rameshwar on that day, but by this it cannot be inferred that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by these 4 accused persons. It may be that there was some quarrel betweenthese 4 accused and the deceased outside the house of Rameshwar on that day, but by this it cannot be inferred that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by these 4 accused persons. It is possible that after the quarrel somebody went there and inflicted those injuries. It has come in the statement of Tilok Ram CW 1 that the surroundings of the house of Rameshwarwas habitated by many persons yet no person of the area has been examined. It is difficult to hold on the basis of the statement of Tilok Ram that the accused had inflicted blows to Phoosaram causing his death. (24). Though it was not stated in the FIR or in the police statements of Shravan Ram and Ramchander, that any person had reached the spot immediately after theoccurrence, and they had informed them about the incident, yet the prosecution has examined PW 3 Puran Ram and PW 5 Sohan Ram to depose that they had gone to the spot and there Shravan and Ramchander had informed them that the 7 accused had caused injuries to Phoosaram. Both these persons are near relations of the deceased. It was not difficult for the prosecution to have persuaded them togive such statements. The independent person was Kana Ram in whose bullock cart, Phoosaram was shifted to Doongargarh. However, Kana Ram has not been examined by the prosecution though it has come in the evidence that Kana Ram was informed about the details of the incident. Kana Ram was obviously the best person to state that whether Shravan and Ramchander had disclosed the names of 7 accused as the assailants. By his non-examination, the defence is justified in arguing that inference should be drawn that Kana was not prepared to toe the line of the prosecution. (25). One important feature of the case is that all the witnesses and Motbirs examined in the case are the members of the same family. PW 1 Shravan is the son of deceased Phoosaram, PW 7 Ramchander, who has appeared as eye witness, is the grand son of Laduram, brother of the deceased. PW 5 Sohan and PW 3 Pooran who claim to have reached the spot immediately after the occurrence, are the sonsof Ladu Ram, brother of the deceased. PW 1 Shravan is the son of deceased Phoosaram, PW 7 Ramchander, who has appeared as eye witness, is the grand son of Laduram, brother of the deceased. PW 5 Sohan and PW 3 Pooran who claim to have reached the spot immediately after the occurrence, are the sonsof Ladu Ram, brother of the deceased. Even `Motbir Veeru Ram (PW 2) is a relation of the deceased. Sohanlal who was one of the `Motbirs of the site inspection memos Ex. P24, P25 and P27, has not been examined, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. The `Motbirs who were associated in the recovery of the weapons are Sohan (PW 5) and Ramchander (PW 7) who are father and son. Fakru-dden, I.O. was asked a pointed question as to why did he not call the independent persons as `Motbirs during investigation. His reply was that he called the persons but they refused to sign the memos. On a further question that who were the persons to whom he had asked to be the `Motbirs, he was unable to name any person. This shows that the Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to pro-cure independent persons as `Motbirs. There may be a situation where independent persons who can be associated as `Motbirs, are not available but when it is apparent on record that no attempt was made to procure independent persons as `Motbirs, it will have to be held that the investigation of the case was not fair. It is significant to point out that Surjasar is not a small village. Shravan admits thatthere were 200 houses in Surjasar. It was therefore not difficult for the Investigating Officer to procure independent persons as `Motbirs. (26). The learned trial Judge has laid great emphasis on the two circumstances to believe the prosecution version : (i) Blood was found in the `Pol and the room of the house of Ramesh- war, father of accused Tiku and the Investigating Officer also observed that an attempt was made to wash out the blood; and (ii) Weapons were recovered from the accused persons which were found to be blood stained. (27). Fakrudeen (PW 8) deposes that there were some blood stains on thesouthern corner of the `Pol of the house of Rameshwar and he removed `Lewda (Plaster) therefrom and seized it under seizure memo Ex.P/25. (27). Fakrudeen (PW 8) deposes that there were some blood stains on thesouthern corner of the `Pol of the house of Rameshwar and he removed `Lewda (Plaster) therefrom and seized it under seizure memo Ex.P/25. He further states that some blood stains were found on the western corner of the room of Rameshwar and he took `Lewda therefrom and prepared memo Ex.P/27. The `Motbirs to recovery of `Lewdas are Sohan Ram and Veeru Ram. As already stated, Sohan Ramhas not been examined. Veeru Ram (PW 2) who is relation of the deceased does not depose that the `Lewdas were sealed at the spot. The FSL report Ex.P/30 indicates that only one packet of `Lewda was sent for analysis. The Serologist report Ex. P/31 indicates that the `Lewda was stained with human blood. On this evidence, it can definitely be said that the `Lewda sent to the Serologist was stainedwith human blood. However, we have seen that it is not proved by the evidence of `Motbirs that the Lewda was sealed at the time of its seizure. In any case there is nothing on record to presume that the blood found on the `Lewda was that of the deceased. Accused Tiku Ram has come out with an explanation that his father had problem in his nose and gums and there used to be discharge of blood from hisnostrils, and he sometimes dropped the blood in the `Pol. When it is not established on record that group of the blood stained `Lewda was the same as that of the blood group of the deceased, the explanation of the accused cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is to be noticed that according to Fakrudeen, the blood stains were of the size of the pulse of gram and they were at the height of about 1 ft. from the ground. Had there been the beating of Phoosaram in that room or the `Pol, much more quantity of blood was bound to have been found, as there were number of lacerated wounds suffered by Phoosaram. In that case, there was every likelihood of the blood being found on the floor of the room or `Pol. The fact that no blood was found on the floor, and only some spots of blood were found at the wall indicates that this blood was not there because of oozing of the blood from the injuries. (28). In that case, there was every likelihood of the blood being found on the floor of the room or `Pol. The fact that no blood was found on the floor, and only some spots of blood were found at the wall indicates that this blood was not there because of oozing of the blood from the injuries. (28). The prosecution witnesses have tried to show that someone had made an attempt to make disappearance of the blood therefrom. Fakrudeen deposes thatit appeared that the floor had been washed, and at some places new earth was spred, and Balli (stopper) of the `Pol was also washed. Fakrudeen did not take the samples of the earth, nor did he take the `Balli in his possession. It is only his imagination that the `Balli was washed or the floor was washed to remove the blood. The possibility that the floor and `Balli were washed some days back in theordinary course is not ruled out. (29). This fact has weighed heavily with the learned Sessions Judge that the weapons, recovered from the accused persons, were blood stained. The recovery of `Lathi, axe and `Gandasi by itself cannot be a circumstance against the accused persons. The cultivators usually keep `lathis axes and `Gandasi in their houses.Their recovery, ofcourse, is of some importance if human blood is found on them. (30). The statement of the Investigating Officer indicates that an `axe was recovered from Ladu Ram, `Gandasi was recovered from accused Rawata Ram and Lathi was recovered from accused Malaram. The report of the FSL Ex. P/30 indicates that the blood was detected on Lathi, `Gandasi and `Kulhari. It is evidenton record that `Lathi recovered from Malaram was not sent to the Serologist. `Gandasi and `Kulhari recovered from Ravta and Ladu Ram were sent to the Serologist. The report of the Serologist Ex.P/31 indicates that the origin of blood on `Gandasi and `Kulhari could not be detected. It is, thus, obvious that there is no evidence to this effect that Lathi recovered from Malaram, `Gandasi recoveredfrom Rawata and `Kulhari recovered from Ladu Ram were stained with human blood. (31). Apart from this, as already stated, no independent person was associated as `Motbir; in the recovery. It is, thus, obvious that there is no evidence to this effect that Lathi recovered from Malaram, `Gandasi recoveredfrom Rawata and `Kulhari recovered from Ladu Ram were stained with human blood. (31). Apart from this, as already stated, no independent person was associated as `Motbir; in the recovery. Veeru Ram (PW 2) who is a relation of the deceased deposes in clear terms that the police was already having `lathis, `Kulhari and`Gandasi with it when the investigation was going on. The statement of Veeru Ram clearly indicates that no weapon was recovered in his presence, on the contrary, the SHO was already having the weapons in his possession. The accused have denied the recovery of weapon at their instance. Thus neither it is proved that weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused, nor that the weaponsrecovered, were stained with human blood. That being so, the recovery of weapons does not connects the accused with the crime. It is also significant to point out that the recovery of the `Kulhari and `Gandasi was said to have been made on 21st December, 1978. They were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 23.1.79 as is deposed by Ritu Singh (PW 6). There is no evidence to this effect that the wea-pons remained intact from 21.12.78 to 23.1.79 i.e. for about a month. Santlal (PW 9) was the Malkhana Incharge which fact is evident by the statement of Ritu Singh (PW 6), but Santlal does not depose that he had kept the weapons in the Malkhana in sealed condition and there was no occasion of tampering of the seal during that period. (32). The item of evidence which has weighed heavily with the learned Sessions Judge is the documentary evidence contained in Ex. P23 and P29. Ex. P/23 is the complaint filed by deceased Phoosaram against 16 persons including accused Malaram. Tiku Ram, Bhera Ram, Rawta Ram and Ladu Ram. In this complaint it was stated that when he was going to his field 16 persons told him that they would kill him. Ex.P/29 is a report made by Phoosaram to SDM Ratangarh on 21.11.78 that on 19.11.78 16 persons named in his complaint threatened him that he would be killed. The prosecution thus wanted to prove that the accused had already expressed their intention to commit murder of Phoosaram. (33). Ex.P/29 is a report made by Phoosaram to SDM Ratangarh on 21.11.78 that on 19.11.78 16 persons named in his complaint threatened him that he would be killed. The prosecution thus wanted to prove that the accused had already expressed their intention to commit murder of Phoosaram. (33). No doubt, the existence of this documentary evidence is a circumstance on which it can be said that the five accused persons might have committed the murder of Phoosaram. However, at the same time, this possibility is not ruled out that because of the existence of this documentary evidence it was presumed by the prosecution that the accused were the persons who had inflicted injuries toPhoosaram. It is significant to point out that there is clear evidence on record that Phoosaram had dozens of enemies. He was quarrelsome man and had prosecuted various persons. Shravan who was asked various questions in this regard, does not deny that his father was in litigation with Rekharam s/o Ladhuram Brahmin, Dhannaram s/o Raghuram Brahmin, Ladhuram s/o Dawaram Chamar, Bhurarams/o Choraram Chamar, Hazariram s/o Jassaram Brahmin, Tulchhiram s/o Khetaram Brahmin, Bhuraram s/o Joraram Chamar, Bhanwarlal Swami r/o Ratangarh, Dhannaram s/o Raghuram, Sitaram s/o Dhannaram Brahmin r/o Surjansar, Devdas s/o Harakhdas, Purakhdas s/o Harakhdas, Chetandas s/o Harakhdas, Denaram s/o Devdas, Owners of Udasar, Surjaram s/o Jagnaram, Bajranglal s/o Surjaram, Loona-ram s/o Gopalram, Kirtaram s/o Gopalram Brahmin r/o Surjansar, Malaram s/o Hemaram, Khegaram s/o Hemaram Chamar r/o Surjansar, Ladhuram s/o Jetharam and Hanuman s/o Chunaram r/o Surjansar, Bhikharam s/o Lichhmanram, Kumbharam s/o Ramchander, Keshraram s/o Kumbharam Kumhar r/o Surjansar. He has also not denied that his father used to appear in 4-5 cases at Ratangarh Court.He simply avoids the reply by saying that he did not know. The witness admits that the deceased had a quarrel with Tulchhi Ram and Mukna Ram and that he had launched criminal cases against them. He further admits that Mukna Ram had also prosecuted his father, and that Rekha Ram had a quarrel with his father and proceedings under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. were launched. It is obvious that Phoosaramwas a quarrelsome person and he had innumerable enemies. It seems that because the two reports were made by Phoosaram in the near past, it was presumed that the accused were the persons who had inflicted blows to Phoosa Ram. (34). It is obvious that Phoosaramwas a quarrelsome person and he had innumerable enemies. It seems that because the two reports were made by Phoosaram in the near past, it was presumed that the accused were the persons who had inflicted blows to Phoosa Ram. (34). The plea of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Three accused Tiku Ram, Bheeka and Bhera have pleaded that they did notlive in this house and they lived with their family in the `Dhani. The evidence has been produced to this effect. (35). Once the evidence of Shravan and Ramchander is disbelieved, and it is found that the weapons recovered were not stained with human blood, there remains hardly any circumstance against the accused to connect them with thecrime. It seems that the accused have been prosecuted after concocting a story against them who were known enemies of the deceased. It is not possible to uphold the conviction of the appellants on wholly unreliable and limping evidence. In our opinion, the trial Judge has erred in convicting the appellants. (36). Consequently, we accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appe-llants and acquit them of the charges. They are on bail. The bail bonds stands cancelled.