S. K. KULSHRESTHA. J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31- 10-1993 of the learned jjjrd Additional Sessions Judge. Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 80/ 1990, by which the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for offence u/secs, 302/34 of the I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE appellants were prosecuted on the allegation that on 23-6-1989, they had committed murder of Premlal in village Jamuniya Pathar. The case of the prosecution in brief is that prior to the date of the incident appellant Girish had threatened PW 1 Ramratan father of the deceased Premlal to kill him within 6 months of which a report Ex. P/i had been sent by him to the Superintendent of Police is stated that once accused Girish has forgotten his watch at the well where he had gone to wash his face which he suspected had been picked up by Saraswatibai. d/o Ramratan, and about which there was a dispute but later the same had been settled before the Panchayat. On the date of the incident. deceased-Premlal had gone to the field where he was surrounded by the accused who fell him down and accused Girish caught his head and twisted it while accused Rahit kept him pinned by sitting on his chest. Lekhram held his legs and Han struck him with stone on his private parts. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PW 11 Juglal. It is alleged that on seeing Naharsha approaching the place the accused fled away. After an hour, the word spread in the village and Pawan informed PW 1 Ramratan about the death of his son Premlal and that the accused had killed him. Ramratan rushed to the spot where he found that his son was lying dead and that his head could be rotated on his neck. He lodged report Ex. P /2 at P. S. Amarwada art 5. 30 p. m. which is at a distance of 36 kms. from the village. ( 3 ) PW 14 A. A. Qureshi recorded the FIR Ex. P/2 and after registering the offence proceeded to the spot where he held inquest on the dead body of Premia and prepared inquest report Ex. P119. He forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW 10 Dr. from the village. ( 3 ) PW 14 A. A. Qureshi recorded the FIR Ex. P/2 and after registering the offence proceeded to the spot where he held inquest on the dead body of Premia and prepared inquest report Ex. P119. He forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW 10 Dr. L. D. Hard ia. ( 4 ) PW 10 Dr. Hardia on external examination of the dead body did not notice any mark of injury on the body of the deceased but on opening the body found fracture of second cervical vertebra and opined that the cause of death was spinal shock due to fracture of second cervical vertebra and the death had occurred within 18 to 36 hours of his examination. He gave his report Ex. P/17 dated 26-6-1989. In his deposition the Doctor has stated that such an injury could be caused by turning the head suddenly. ( 5 ) AFTER completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, however, found the accused guilty on trial and convicted and sentenced them as stated above and hence the present appeal. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The ocular testimony in the present case has been projected through PW 11 Jugial. Juglal has stated that in the morning he had gone for answering the call of nature to his field and heard a loud groan followed by a low sound. He stood up and saw the accused. He witnessed the accused Girish turning the head of a person while Rohit sat on his chest and accused Han struck him on his private parts with a stone. According to this witness, accused Lekhram was holding the legs. He has stated that at that time, he could not see the person who was being be laboured and on seeing Naharsha, the accused ran away. He has deposed that thereafter he went home. After an hour, Kallu shouted in the village that Premlal is lying dead and when villagers rushed to the place he also went there and found him lying dead. He has deposed that thereafter he went home. After an hour, Kallu shouted in the village that Premlal is lying dead and when villagers rushed to the place he also went there and found him lying dead. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has severely criticised the truthfulness of this witness on the ground that it is unthinkable that an adult male like PW 11 Juglal would witness such a heinous crime and still not inform the villagers about it and wait only till the news spread in the village and go to the spot alongwith the villagers. According to the learned Counsel, his statement that Han had struck the deceased on his private parts with the stone does not find corroboration from the medical evidence as Doctor did not find any injury in that part of the body and further, his statement Ex. 0/4 to the police does not contain material facts as deposed to by him before the Court. Learned Counsel has also referred to various other circumstances on record in order to discredit this witness. ( 8 ) THE FIR Ex. P12 of the incident was lodged by PW 1 Ramratan father of the deceased Premlal. In this report he stated that while he was as leer in his house his nephew Pawan came and woke him up and informed that his son Premlal was dead and that Punna Katiya had informed him (Pawan) that accused Girish, Rahit. Han Prasad and Lekhram had killed him and thrown him in the field. The prosecution has examined Punna as PW 13. PW 13 Punna in his deposition, has stated that while he was carrying a plough, he had heard near the house of Rekhanlal that Girish Han Prasad. Lekhram and Rahit must have killed the deceased on account of the dispute of the wrist-watch of Girish. He admits that Pawan had met him but he does not say that he had given any information to Pawan. Pawan Kumar (PW 3) has stated that while he was going to the village to bring milk, Punna had told him that the accused persons had killed Premlal and he, accordingly, informed his brother Karu. He has further stated that when villagers went to see the dead body of Premlal he also went and saw the dead body. Pawan Kumar (PW 3) has stated that while he was going to the village to bring milk, Punna had told him that the accused persons had killed Premlal and he, accordingly, informed his brother Karu. He has further stated that when villagers went to see the dead body of Premlal he also went and saw the dead body. He has not supported the prosecution case that he had informed his uncle Ramratan (PW 1) and has been declared hostile. Thus, insofar as the version of the prosecution as contained in FIR Ex. p /2 is concerned, PW 1 Ramratan is not supported by PW 3 Pawan Kumar to the effect that Pawan Kumar had informed him about the death of his son and further that he had learnt about the name of the assailants from Punna (PW 13) and Punna does not support the case and states that he had merely heard a rum our that the accused must have killed him. He does not say that he had informed Pawan Kumar that the accused persons had killed the deceased. ( 9 ) PW 1 Ramratan while cone firming having lodged FIR Ex. P/2, makes deliberate improvement in the statement before the Court to lend assurance to the prosecution case that Juglal was an eyewitness to the incident and states that Juglal had informed him that the accused persons had killed him and that he should report the matter to the police, accordingly, He has been confronted with the commission of this fact in the FIR Ex. P/2 and his statement to the police Ex. D/1 for which he has not offered any explanation. It is, thus, clear that till the villagers gathered near the dead body, Juglal (PW 11) had not disclosed to anyone that he had witnessed the incident and that accused were the persons who were responsible for the death of Premlal. PW 12 Tirath has categorically stated in paragraph 3 of his statement that when the villagers collected, Juglal was also there but he had merely expressed his suspicion on accused Girish. It is, therefore, manifest that till the lodging of the report in the evening at 5. 30, PW 11 Juglal had not disclosed it in the village that he was an eyewitness to the incident and had seen the accused persons killing the deceased. The requisition for post-mortem Ex. It is, therefore, manifest that till the lodging of the report in the evening at 5. 30, PW 11 Juglal had not disclosed it in the village that he was an eyewitness to the incident and had seen the accused persons killing the deceased. The requisition for post-mortem Ex. P/16 sent on 24-6-1989, the next day of the incident, also merely says that as per the information received by the police, Girish and his companions were said to have killed him while the deceased was going to the field. Thus, even till the next day, the information with regard to the participation of the appellants other than accused Girish was not available with the police. In any case, PW 11 Juglal himself admits having gone back to his house after this incident and having gone to the spot only when the villagers collected, which contra-indicates his being an eye-witness to the incident. We find it extremely unsafe to rely on the testimony of such a witness. It appears that on account of the past dispute, the suspicion naturally fell on accused Girish and, therefore, a story was developed against him and his brother and others closely associated with him. ( 10 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants and sentence passed against them is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. The appellants Rahit, Han Prasad and Lekhram are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appellant Girish is undergoing sentence in jail. He shall be forthwith set at liberty if not required in connection with any other matter. Appeal allowed. .