Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants herein, through this- appeal, have questioned their conviction and sentence. They were convicted- by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas (Distt. Alwar) as under: Under Section 302, I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- each and in. default to further undergo six months R. I. and under! Sections 147 and 148 of the I. P. C. , R. I. for one year. Under Section 302/149, I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- each and in default to further undergo six months R. I. and under Sections 147 and 148 of the I. P. C. , R. I. for one year. Smt. Preeto Bai Under Section 147 and 148 of the I. P. C. to undergo one months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) BRIEF prosecution version is required to be set out at the outset. ( 3 ) F. I. R No. 48/93 (Ex. P8) was registered at Police Station, Tijara on April 5,1993 on the basis of the recorded statement of Darshan Singh (Ex. P1), who inter alia, stated that he was sleeping on the chabutra in front of his house during the preceding night. Phool Singh and Baldev, his brothers and Surain Singh, a guest, were also sleeping nearby whereas his parents and sister were sleeping inside the house. At around 11-12 p. m. the appellants including seven other persons, including ladies armed with blunt and sharp edged weapons, came there. Appellant Surjeet Singh is alleged to have inflicted a Pharsi blow on the head of Phool Singh, followed by yet another Pharsi blow by appellant Dilip Singh. Appellant Kala Singh inflicted Jelli blow on the head of Phool Singh: Thereafter all the intruders further assaulted Phool Singh and killed him on the spot. Appellant Smt. Preeto Bai inflicted a Pharsi blow on the head of informant Darshan Singh. Other assailants also assaulted Darshan Singh. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the said report a case under Sections 302, 307, 323,147,148 and 149, LP. C. registered and investigation commenced. Site Plan Ex. P2, recovery memo of charpai (Bed) Ex. P4, recovery memo of towel Ex. PS were prepared. Post-mortem of dead body (Ex. P18) was conducted. Accused appellants were arrested and certain weapons were recovered. C. registered and investigation commenced. Site Plan Ex. P2, recovery memo of charpai (Bed) Ex. P4, recovery memo of towel Ex. PS were prepared. Post-mortem of dead body (Ex. P18) was conducted. Accused appellants were arrested and certain weapons were recovered. On conclusion Dilip Singh Under Section 302 read Surjit Singh With Section 147 and Kala Singh 148 of the I. P. C Jeet Singh Under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 of the I. P. C. of investigation charge sheet was filed. Eventually the appellants were put up for trial before the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, who framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 147,148,302,302/149 and 323, I. P. C. against the appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution, thereafter, examined as many as 18 witnesses. The explanation of the accused-appellants under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was obtained. They denied the allegations appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution. However, no witness in defence was examined. Finally the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinabove vide his judgment dated November 10, 1994. ( 5 ) IN order to determine as to whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused- appellants beyond reasonable doubt, we proceed to discuss the origin and the genesis of the occurrence. First we take up certain undisputed facts, which may be summarised as under:a) The occurrence had taken place under the cover of darkness. b) PW 3 Jagtar Singh claims to have lodged the F. I. R. with P. S. Tijara, P. W. 18 Sohan Lal, 1. 0. accepted that he received information from Jagtar at 1. 00 a. m. on April 5,1993 which he entered at No. 122/93 in Rojnamcha but he did not produce the said report with the charge- sheet. c) In the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P1) Darshan had named as many as 12 persons as assailants. d) PW 12 Dr. Kailash Chand admitted in his cross examination that on April 5, 1993 he examined the injuries sustained by accused Surjit Singh and signed his injury report Ex. D7 A. Both Phool Singh and Surjit Singh sustained injuries at the same time. e) No report of chemical analysis has been produced to prove the presence of human blood on the articles recovered. D7 A. Both Phool Singh and Surjit Singh sustained injuries at the same time. e) No report of chemical analysis has been produced to prove the presence of human blood on the articles recovered. f) As per site plan the accused party and complainant party are neighbours. ( 6 ) IT is in the backdrop of undisputed facts mentioned hereinabove that we now analyse the evidence led by the prosecution. PW 1 Baldev Singh who is the brother of the deceased stated that he and Surain Singh were sleeping on a cot whereas Phool Singh was sleeping on another cot. On the third cot Darshan Singh and Bhagat Singh were sleeping. His father Jagtar Singh, mother Preetobai, sister Bachno Bai, Babhi Paro Bai were sleeping inside the room. Surjeet Singh, Dilip Singh, Preeto Bai, Kala Singh and Jit Singh came there. Surjit, Dilip and Preeto were armed with Pharsis, Kala Singh was having Jelli and Jit Singh was armed with lathi. Surjit Singh inflicted Pharsi blow on the head of Phool Singh, Dilip also inflicted Pharsi blow on the head of Phool Singh whereas Kala Singh inflicted Jelli blow on his head. When Darshan Singh attempted to intervene Preeto inflicted Pharsi blow on his head. Almost the same version was echoed in the statements of PW 2 Darshan Singh. PW 3 Jagtar Singh, PW 4 Preeto Bai, PW 5 Paro Bai, PW 6 Bhagat Singh, PW 7 Charan Singh and PW 9 Bachno Bai ( 7 ) DR. Kailash Chand (PW 12) conducted autopsy of the dead body of Phool Singh and found following injuries:1. Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 1-1/2 x bone deep over left parietal region ant to the ear lobe. 2. Incised wound 8-1/2 x 1-1/2 x bone deep over left parietal occipital region. 3. Lacerated wound 6-1/2 x 1-1/2 x bone deep over left occipital bone (behind the left ear ). Darshan Singh sustained one lacerated wound measuring 7-112 cm. x 1 cm. x I cm. on left parietal occipital region caused by blunt weapon. His injury report (Ex. P19) shows that his injury was examined on 5-4-1993 at 1. 50 a. m. Accused-appellant Surjeet Singh sustained as many as seven injuries. He was examined on 5-4- 1993 at 2. 30 a. m. Dr. Kailash Chand (PW 17) proved his injury report. x I cm. on left parietal occipital region caused by blunt weapon. His injury report (Ex. P19) shows that his injury was examined on 5-4-1993 at 1. 50 a. m. Accused-appellant Surjeet Singh sustained as many as seven injuries. He was examined on 5-4- 1993 at 2. 30 a. m. Dr. Kailash Chand (PW 17) proved his injury report. He received as many as three lacerated wounds out of which one was caused on right parietal region. ( 8 ) PW 3 Jagtar Singh, the father of deceased, stated in his examination in-chief as under: HAM MARE KO CHHOD KAR POLICE MAIN SUCHNA DENE CHALE GAYE. POLICE AAI. T (Leaving the deceased, we went to inform the police. Police arrived ). PW 18 Sohan Lal, the Investigating Officer stated in his examination-in-chief that: RAT KO EK BAJE PARIWADI JAGTAR SINGH DWARA SUCHNA MILl KI USKE VA BAHADUR KE LADKON MAIN JHAGDA HO GAYA HAT JISKI RAP AT NO. 122/93 ROJNAMCHA MAIN DALI GAl. T (At 1. 00 a. m. in the night informant Jagtar Singh informed that there was a quarrel between his sons and the sons of Bahadur. Report No. 122/93 was entered in the Rojnamcha ). PW 18 Sohan Lal further stated in the cross examination: SURJEET KO BHI GHATNA MAIN CHOT AAI VAH ASPATAL MAIN MILA. USKA MAINE DOCTRI MUAAINA KARVAYA. T (Surjeet also sustained injury in the incident. He met in the Hospital. I got him medically examined ). Now we scan the version of the prosecution witnesses in respect of injuries sustained by accused- appellant Surjit Singh. PW 1 Baldev Singh stated that he did not know as to whether Surjit Singh was admitted in the Hospital or not. He did not see any injury on the person of Surjit Singh. PW 2 Darshan Singh though admits that Surjit Singh was taken by the police but he states that he did not see any injury on the person of Surjit Singh. He denies that he and Surjit Singh both were medically examined together. PW 3 Jagtar Singh also states in his cross examination that he does not know as to whether Surjit Singh sustained injuries or not but he firmly denies the suggestions that Surjit Singh was medically examined. PW 4 Preeto Bai states that she did not see any injury on the person of Surjit Singh. PW 3 Jagtar Singh also states in his cross examination that he does not know as to whether Surjit Singh sustained injuries or not but he firmly denies the suggestions that Surjit Singh was medically examined. PW 4 Preeto Bai states that she did not see any injury on the person of Surjit Singh. PW 5 Parc Bai also states that she did not see any injury on the person of Surjit Singh. PW 6 Bhagat Singh also denied having seen the injuries on the person of Surjit Singh. PW 8 Bachno Bai also states that she did not see injuries on the person of Surjit Singh. ( 9 ) FOR failure to explain injuries on the person of the accused the following inferences may be drawn: (a) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version; (b) that the witness who had denied the presence of injuries is lying on a material point and his version is not reliable; and (c) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to cast a cloud on the prosecution case. The effect of non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused is not a question of law but a question of fact. Although non-explanation is not always fatal to the prosecution the fact of failure to explain is to be taken into account to test the truth of the prosecution case and the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. Such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses. ( 10 ) A perusal of the statement of PW 18 Sohan Lal demonstrates that in the instant case accused Surjit Singh sustained injuries in the same transaction in which the deceased Phool Singh and Darshan Singh sustained injuries. Father of the deceased Jagtar Singh informed the Investigating Officer at 1. 00 a. m. i. e. after about one hour from the incident that there was a quarrel between his sons and the sons of Bahadur and the Investigating Officer entered Report No. 12/93 in the Rojnamcha. This report was the original F. I. R. The prosecution has failed to explain satisfactorily as to why this report was suppressed? The importance of the first information lies in several reasons. This report was the original F. I. R. The prosecution has failed to explain satisfactorily as to why this report was suppressed? The importance of the first information lies in several reasons. It is a statement made soon after the occurrence, hence the memory of informant is fresh and it is also unlikely that he had opportunity of fabrication. F. I. R. being the first version of the occurrence is by far an important document. If it is besmeared or tainted in any manner a great dent is caused to the prosecution in as much as every witness whose statement takes its root in the F. I. R. will be eyed with suspicion by the Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case it appears that by not producing the original F. I. R. the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version. This view of ours is further strengthened from the fact that in the Parcha Bayan of Darshan Singh (Ex. P1) as many as 12 persons were named at the accused assailants whereas before the trial Court the version of all the eye witnesses was restricted to only the accused-appellants which are five in number. It is more or less the case of the prosecution that incident had taken place when all the witnesses were sleeping aild it was a dark night but before the Court some witnesses attempted to show that it was moon lit night or incident took place in the light of a bulb. But the Investigating Officer Sohan Lal stated in the cross-examination that it was a dark night. From the site plan it is established that accused party and complainant party are neighbours. ( 11 ) WE have taken into account the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of accused Surjit, Singh in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. We have scrutinized their statements with care and caution. At this juncture it is necessary to mention that accused Surjit Singh was arrested on 11-4-1993 through arrest memo Ex. P24 whereas Dr. Kailash Gupta (PW 12) stated in his cross examination that Surjit Singh was produced before him on 5-4-93 at 2. 30 a. m. by Narendra Singh ASI, and he examined the injuries sustained by Surjit Singh and issued Medical Injury Report Ex. D7. P24 whereas Dr. Kailash Gupta (PW 12) stated in his cross examination that Surjit Singh was produced before him on 5-4-93 at 2. 30 a. m. by Narendra Singh ASI, and he examined the injuries sustained by Surjit Singh and issued Medical Injury Report Ex. D7. It is rather an astonishing fact that when Surjit Singh was with Narendra Singh A. S. I. on 5-4-1993, why his arrest was shown on 11-4-1993? Where was he kept for six days? The prosecution witnesses who have denied the presence of injuries on the person of Surjit Singh, are definitely lying on a material point and we are of the firm view that they are not reliable witnesses. When the incident had taken place in the dark night where everybody was sleeping. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by accused Surjit Singh, undermines the evidence of the prosecution to the core and falsify the substratum of its story. ( 12 ) SUPPRESSION of F. I. R. and non-production of chemical analysis report by the prosecution to prove the presence of human blood on the articles recovered further creates doubt in our mind with regard to the truthfulness of the prosecution case. From the site plan it is evident that independent persons such as Sushila Nursingh and Dilip Singh reside near the place of occurrence but they were not examined by the prosecution. Darshan Singh PW 2 stated that accused Preeto Bai inflicted Pharsi blow on his head from sharp edged side whereas from his medical injury report it appears that he sustained lacerated wound which could not have been caused by sharp-edged Pharsi. Darshan Singh also named 12 persons as assailants in his Parcha Bayan but before the trial Court he left seven persons and restricted his version to the accused appellants only Such a witness cannot be relied upon by us. From the Parcha Bayan of Darshan Singh (Ex. P1) it appears that all the twelve persons named in the Ex. P1 inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Phool Singh. If we believe this statement then deceased Phool Singh ought to have received as many as 12 injuries on his person but from the post-mortem report it is evident that the deceased had only sustained three injuries. Darshan Singh denied having deposed the material portions of his earlier statement given to the police. If we believe this statement then deceased Phool Singh ought to have received as many as 12 injuries on his person but from the post-mortem report it is evident that the deceased had only sustained three injuries. Darshan Singh denied having deposed the material portions of his earlier statement given to the police. He stated in his cross-examination that he did not name twelve persons but the police added their names. A close look at the statement of Darshan Singh reveals that he has completely changed his version before the trial Court. Darshan Singh is the star witness of the prosecution and his testimony was completely shattered in the cross-examination. The other witness Baldev Singh (PW 1) stated in his examination under Section 161. Cr. P. C. that Surjit Singh inflicted lathi blow on the person of Phool Singh whereas before the trial Court he stated that Surjit inflicted Pharsi blow. When he was confronted with the police statement he denied having given it to the police. He admitted that he did not attempt to save Phool Singh. He is the real brother of the deceased and the way he deposed it is sufficient to declare him an unreliable witness. PW 3 Jagtar Singh was sleeping inside the house. He stated that Surjit Singh inflicted lathi blow. Dalip Singh, Pharsi blow. Kala Singh J elli blow and Jeet Singh caused lathi blow on the person of Phool Singh. When he reached near Phool Singh he was dead. In the Parcha Bayan, Darshan Singh stated that his father Jagtar Singh, his mother, Bhabhi and sister also woke up afterwards. According to Jagtar Singh the deceased sustained four injuries whereas the deceased only sustained three injuries. Even otherwise we do not rely upon his testimony as he deposed before the trial Court an entirely changed and improved version. He did not explain injuries sustained by accused Surjit Singh, PW 4 Preeto Bai, PW 5 Parc Bai and PW 9 Bachno Bai were also sleeping inside the house and PW 6 Bhagat Singh is a chance witness. He resides at Mithiyav as and is the nephew of Jagtar Singh. It appears that all these witnesses were not present at the spot. There are material contradictions in their statements before the trial Court and in their earlier version before the police. Accused Surjit Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313. Cr. He resides at Mithiyav as and is the nephew of Jagtar Singh. It appears that all these witnesses were not present at the spot. There are material contradictions in their statements before the trial Court and in their earlier version before the police. Accused Surjit Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313. Cr. P. C. stated that on the date of the incident when he and his wife Surjit Kaur were hearing, tape recorder at his house. Darshan Singh, Jagtar Singh, Phool Singh, Baldev Singh, Surain Singh and Bhagat Singh armed with lathis came to his house and inflicted lathi blows on his person. Thereupon his wife in order to defend him inflicted injuries on the person of Phool Singh with the spade. ( 13 ) THE learned trial Court, it appears did not appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective. As we have discussed hereinabove that the genesis of the crime is suppressed by the prosecution and no witness from the locality whose presence would be natural was examined. Even the original F. I. R. was suppressed without any reasonable explanation. Parcha Bayan of Darshan Singh was treated as F. I. R. but major part of it was denied by the maker. The injuries sustained by the accused Surjit Singh were not explained. Chemical analysis report was withheld. All these circumstances create doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version. The prosecution thus, has failed to prove the guilt against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. ( 14 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated November 10, 1994. We acquit all the accused appellants from the charges under Sections 302,302/149, 147 and 148 of the I. P. C. The accused-appellants be set at liberty if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.