JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for causing murder of Ramji Lal son of Panna Lal, aged 45 years, village Sahar at about 10/11 a.m. on June 11, 1990, in Sessions Case No. 13/1991 and vide judgment dated July 23, 1993 they were convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. In default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The factual aspect of the prosecution case is extensively set out in the impugned judgment of the trial court. Put briefly, the prosecution case, as unfolded in first information report, is that the deceased Ramji Lal had gone to his field known as `Khudawala' at 4.00 a.m. On the day of incident i.e. June 11, 1990. His son Bhawani Singh (PW 1) came there with break-fast for him at about 11 a.m. He found all the three appellants assaulting his father with knives. Thereafter, they poured acid on his body and went away towards village Gandal. Bhawani Singh, then, came back to the village and informed about the incident to his uncles Sonia (PW 3) and Kishore (PW 4). The dead body was brought to the village in a bullock cart and a written report of the incident was made by Bhawani Singh at Police Station, Nadauti, at 4.45 p.m. On this report, Crime No. 64/1990 was registered under Sections 302 and 341 Indian Penal Code. The investigation of the case was made by PW 8 K.P Singh and PW 10 Deshraj. During investigation, inquest report Ex.R 6, site plan Ex.R 3 were prepared. Blood stained and control soil were taken from the place of incident vide Ex.P 11 and R 15. Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW 2 Dr. Jagan Lal Meena at 5.30 p.m. on the same day vide post-mortem report Ex.R 7. As per the report, the deceased had nine incised wound and there were multiple burn areas on back side of his body as detailed out in the report. Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW 2 Dr. Jagan Lal Meena at 5.30 p.m. on the same day vide post-mortem report Ex.R 7. As per the report, the deceased had nine incised wound and there were multiple burn areas on back side of his body as detailed out in the report. In the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was external and internal haemorrhage and shock caused by multiple incised wounds on the head and injury in the brain matter. Digestive material was also found present in small intestine and faecal material was present in large intestine of the deceased. 3. After usual investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants in the Court of the concerned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City. Learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 447 Indian Penal Code against the appellant Murari. The remaining appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 447 and 302 Indian Penal Code or alternate under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 4. During trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses to seek conviction of the appellants. The appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded alibi. Three witnesses were examined in defence. After completion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier. 5. Conviction of the appellants is mainly based on the evidence of the sole eye-witness Bhawani Singh who is son of the deceased. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, while assailing conviction seriously criticized evidence of the eye-witness and contended that his evidence is not reliable. Learned counsel contended that the witness, in ordinary course of nature, could not be present at the place and time of the incident as he claims to be the eye witness by chance. It was, then, contended that his statement stands completely falsified by medical evidence and there are material contradictions and improbabilities in his statement that no reliance can be placed for convicting the appellants for a serious charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. It was, then, contended that his statement stands completely falsified by medical evidence and there are material contradictions and improbabilities in his statement that no reliance can be placed for convicting the appellants for a serious charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel also contended that injuries on the back of the deceased were not sustained by acid as stated by the sole eye-witness and presence of digestive material in small intestine and faecal material in large intestine indicate that the incident ought to have taken place early in the morning. If the incident had taken place at 10 or 11 a.m., there was no possibility of the presence of digestive material in small intestine or faecal material in large intestine. Lastly, it was contended that motive for the murder has not been brought on record and in absence of independent corroboration, conviction of the appellants on testimony of PW 1 Bhawani Singh alone is neither safe nor proper. 6. We carefully and minutely examined the entire record and evidence in light of the above submissions. On critical analysis our reaction is that submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants have merit and the trial Court committed serious error in convicting the appellants relying on the sole testimony of Bhawani Singh. 7. The incident had taken place in the field `Khudawala', which was at a distance 2 or 2.25 kms. from the village and the house of the deceased. In normal course, the witness Bhawani Singh could not be present at the time and place of incident. He claims to be the eye-witness by chance. According to him, he went to the field with break fast for his father. It was summer time and, normally, in village life break fast is taken at 7 a.m. or so, and not at 11 a.m. when the incident took place. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the witness that he happened to be at the scene of occurrence at the time of incident as he had gone there with break-fast for his father. Then, explanation for the delay in taking breakfast at 11 a.m., as given by the witness, also does not appear to be convincing, which according to him was due to delay in bringing water from Hand-Pump of the village. 8. Then, explanation for the delay in taking breakfast at 11 a.m., as given by the witness, also does not appear to be convincing, which according to him was due to delay in bringing water from Hand-Pump of the village. 8. Another serious infirmity on the record is that the evidence of the witness stands falsified by medical evidence. As per the statement of the witness, during the course of incident, appellant Murari took out a bottle containing acid from his pocket and sprinkled it on the back of the deceased. Thus, according to him the burn injuries on back of the deceased were by acid throwing. However, Dr. Jagan Lal Meena has categorically stated that injuries on the back of the deceased were not caused by acid throwing. This conflict between oral and expert evidence is of fundamental character and it would be difficult to convict accused persons on the basis of such conflicting evidence. The Doctor also did not find any acid burns on the clothes of the deceased and he admits the injuries on the back of the deceased could be as a result of contact with hot object and it might be caused if the deceased remained lying in bright sun for a long time. The possibility, therefore, is that the injuries found on back of the deceased were caused as a result of his lying on the ground in summer bright sun. 9. There is yet another circumstance to cast serious doubt that the incident had taken place at 11 a.m. The medical evidence shows that digestive material was present in small intestine and faecal material was in large intestine of the deceased at the time of his death. If this is so, then the whole prosecution must crumble, as this would establish beyond doubt that the deceased died early in the morning even before attending the call of nature and the so called eye witness, who is son of the deceased could not have been the assault on him. The non explanation of the prosecution this important defect is sufficient to discredit the evidence of the sole eye witness and also the entire prosecution case. 10. A careful perusal of the evidence of sole eye witness Bhawani Singh shows full of serious contradictions and meaningful embellishments that we find it difficult to believe on his testimony. The non explanation of the prosecution this important defect is sufficient to discredit the evidence of the sole eye witness and also the entire prosecution case. 10. A careful perusal of the evidence of sole eye witness Bhawani Singh shows full of serious contradictions and meaningful embellishments that we find it difficult to believe on his testimony. In his police statement, Ex.D. 1 he has not stated expressly that the appellants Jhuriya and Madan were having knives or they assaulted the deceased with knives. On the other hand, his statement is that they caught the deceased, while appellant Murari inflicted him knife blows and poured acid from the bottle which he took out from his pocket. The last circumstance against him is that he is a interested witness being son of the deceased. The cumulative effect of all the infirmities is that the whole prosecution case appears to be shaky and doubtful and it is difficult to sustain conviction of the appellants. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the above inherent defects which have resulted in miscarriage of justice calling for interference from this Court. 11. The testimony of PW 3 Sonia further confirms our doubt on the prosecution case. He is real brother of the deceased and he had also gone to plough his field early in the morning on the day of incident. His field is stated to be near the field `Khudawala' where the incident took place. The Investigating Agency, at point of time wanted to arrest him in this case, and apprehending his arrest he filed an application to get anticipatory bail from the court. Then, this witness has stated that when he was returning from the field he saw the appellant Murari going towards the field `Khudawala'. If his statement is taken to be true, the prosecution case becomes doubtful that all the three appellants came to the field and assaulted the deceased there. 12. Then, no motive of the murder has been brought on record by the prosecution. It is true that absence of motive may not be relevant when there is direct evidence to connect the accused, but if direct evidence of the sole eyewitness is found unreliable or doubtful, then absence of motive becomes a significant factor in favour of the accused. 13. It is true that absence of motive may not be relevant when there is direct evidence to connect the accused, but if direct evidence of the sole eyewitness is found unreliable or doubtful, then absence of motive becomes a significant factor in favour of the accused. 13. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and reliable evidence and this appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 447 Indian Penal Code are set aside. They are acquitted of all the charges. They are in jail, hence shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******