Venkataswmi, J. This State appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal made by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar, on 28th June, 1968 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1967. The six respondents herein were charged with offences under section 302 read with sections 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Ramachandra Reddy of Mallasettihalli. After trial they were acquitted of all the charges. The story as unfolded by the prosecution is as follows: The deceased Ramachandra Reddy and the fifth accused (Krishna Reddy) and the sixth accused (Venkataramana Reddy) were related as uncle and nephews. They were all residents of Sottikere Village in Sidlaghatta Taluk. Since there were differences as regards partition of the joint family properties, A-5 and A-6 were residing in a shed or a farm house on one of the lands near Settikere Village. On 22nd July, 1967, when A-5 and A-6 with the help of the other accused Nos. 1 to 4 (they were all arrayed herein in the same order as respondents), were ploughing a dry land, bearing S. No. 171 of Settikere Village, at about 5 or 6 p.m. the deceased Ramachandra Reddy went there along with one Hussain Sab, P.W. 8, with a view to question them and obstruct their ploughing. He questioned the first accused (Sabjansab) and thrust at him with an umbrella; whereupon A-2 to A-4 held him thus enabling A-1 to take out a “malchoori” (dagger) and stab the deceased. Further, he continued stabbing the deceased till the breaking of the weapon into two, separating the blade from the hilt. P.W. 8, Hussain Sab, is said to have run away from the scene and reported the matter to P.W. 4, Venkatadasappa, the Shanbog of the village. It may, however, be mentioned that in so far as A-6, Venkataramana Reddy, was concerned, the version is that he had gone away to Bangalore after leaving necessary instructions to the other accused to murder the deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that previous to the date of the incident several attempts were made in vain to do away with the deceased, and they would be referred to later on while adverting to the evidence of P.W. 7, Badesab. It is also the case of the prosecution that previous to the date of the incident several attempts were made in vain to do away with the deceased, and they would be referred to later on while adverting to the evidence of P.W. 7, Badesab. A report, marked as Exhibit P-3, was sent by the Shanbog P.W. 4 through one Thoti Narisinga, P.W. 6 to the Police Station at Diburahally. On receipt of Exhibit P-3, P.W. 15. K, Sarvotham, the Sub-Inspector of Police, sent one police constable to the place of the incident. After forwarding the necessary First Information Report (Exhibit P-1) and the report (Exhibit P-3) to the superior officer, P.W. 15 reached the spot at 2 p.m. on 23rd July, 1967. P.W. 16, Sri M.S. Yathiraj, the Circle Inspector of Police, also arrived at the spot at 3 p.m. on being intimated of the incident through a copy of the F.I.R. forwarded to him. The Inspector of Police thereupon took up the investigation. After the completion of the investigation, he placed a charge-sheet on 14th August, 1967 in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate at Chickballapur. After the preliminary enquiry by the said learned Magistrate, the accused were committed to take their trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Kolar. Before the learned Sessions Judge, 16 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. The plea of the accused was a total denial of their complicity in the offence. It may be remarked that the learned Sessions Judge had nowhere specifically come to the conclusion that the deceased Ramachandra Reddy met with a homicidal death. He has proceeded on the presumption that if the evidence of the direct witnesses to the crime were to be believed, it would afford sufficient proof of this fact also. After a careful and detailed examination of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9, who were put forth as eye witnesses by the prosecution, he has rejected their testimony as unworthy of belief. He has also not accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution relating to the motive for the crime and the recovery of the weapon, M.O. 1, on the information furnished by A-1, Sabjansab. In addition to these, he has referred to several infirmities in the investigation relating to Exhibit P-3 (Complaint). He has also not accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution relating to the motive for the crime and the recovery of the weapon, M.O. 1, on the information furnished by A-1, Sabjansab. In addition to these, he has referred to several infirmities in the investigation relating to Exhibit P-3 (Complaint). Although P.W. 4, Venkatadasappa, has been allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution as being hostile to their case, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that his evidence relating to the complaint, Exhibit P-3, which has formed the basis for the F.I.R., was not at all improbable having regard to the fact that the F.I.R. sent to the Magistrate at Chickbellapur was received only at 11-55 p.m. and a copy thereof by the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 12 midnight of 23rd July, 1967, although according to P.W. 15, they were all prepared and sent by him soon after the complaint was received at 11-30 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge has criticised the conduct of the Investigating Officer and referred to the evidence collected by him as manufactured only to entangle the accused. He has characterised the evidence of the eye witnesses as false and unreliable. In view of the above conclusions, the accused were acquitted. The evidence adduced by the prosecution consists of: (i) medical, (ii) motive, (iii) recovery and (iv) direct evidence. The evidence, therefore, will be considered by us in that order for convenience. It is not disputed that the deceased Ramachandra Reddy met with a homicidal death. It is also clear from the evidence of P.W. 1, Dr.B. Venkata Rao. During the post mortem examination conducted by him on the morning of 24th July, 1967 at the spot itself, he has noted as many as 12 incised wounds on the dead body. He has also opined that all the injuries are antimortem and the death was due to syncope as a result of severe haemorrhage. In his evidence before the Court he has stated that injury No. 3 was the fatal injury which must have caused instantaneous death. It is clear from the nature and the location of the injuries that they must have been inflicted by external violence. It may at this stage be relevant to note that P.W. 1 has clearly opined that only injuries Nos. It is clear from the nature and the location of the injuries that they must have been inflicted by external violence. It may at this stage be relevant to note that P.W. 1 has clearly opined that only injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 appearing on the dead body could be caused by M.O. 1, dagger, concerned in this case as the weapon used in the offence. If the evidence of P.W. 1 is accepted, it follows that there were other weapons used in the commission of the crime. There is nothing suggested against the acceptance of the evidence of this witness. As regards the evidence relating to motive, the evidence adduced consists of P.W. 12, Bangarappa Naick, and P.W. 14, Gajjala Narayanappa. P.W. 12, Bangarappa Naik, has stated that the deceased and A-5 and A-6 were members of a joint Hindu family and owing to differences between them in connection with the partition of the joint family properties, they were living separately. It is also stated that A-6 was making demands on the deceased for the partition of the properties and the deceased had not yet given their shares. This witness has further stated that they had agreed amongst themselves to effect a partition during the month of ‘Shravana’ as the month in which the incident took place was ‘Ashada’ and thus inauspicious. The other witness Gejjala Narayanappa, P.W. 14, has also spoken to the fact that the dispute relating to partition between A-5 and A-6 on the one hand and the deceased Ramachandra Reddy on the other had not been settled for the previous 2 or 3 years. It is clear from the evidence of these two witnesses that there was some sort of an agreement to settle the matter in the month of “Shravana,” that is the month next to “Ashada.” It is also not clear from their evidence as to how the death of Ramachandra Reddy would improve the position of A-5 and A-6 in relation to the impending partition. In view of these circumstances, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge on this aspect of the matter. In view of these circumstances, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge on this aspect of the matter. In regard to the evidence relating to the recovery, it consists of the statement of A-1, Sabjansab, made during the course of the investigation, which is marked as Exhibit P-18, (admissible portion only) and the evidence of P.W. 11, Sidda Reddy and the Investigating Officer P.W. 16. P.W. 11, Sidda Reddy has stated that A-1, Sabjansab, took the Police Officer and others including himself to asugarcane garden and took out a “Baku.” He has also identified M.O. 1 before the Court as the one produced by him. M.O. 1 is only a blade of the dagger said to have been used in the commission of the crime and M.O. 4 is the hilt of it. The said dagger was produced only after 10 days of the date of the incident. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that when A-1 took them to the spot there were already two Constables present at the spot. In view of this evidence of P.W. 11, the recovery of M.O. 1 on the information of A-1 is considerably robbed of its value. However, this is only a circumstance which, unless corroborated by other evidence on record, cannot be of much use to foist the guilt on A-1. In addition it has to be shown that that was the weapon used in the commission of the crime. On this aspect of the matter the prosecution has also examined P.W. 14, Gajjala Narayanappa. It is the version of this witness that this dagger, namely M.O. 1 and M.O. 4, was last seen by him in the hands of A-5 during his marriage, which took place about 20 days previous to the date of the incident, the inference being that it belonged either to A-5 or A-6. It is stated by him that it was the first marriage ever attended by him and that he had noticed the marks of “Basava” and “Cobra” on the handle. No reason is indicated as to why he should specifically and particularly notice these identifying marks on a dagger, which was kept near a “Kalasa” with its blade covered with cloth. It is, therefore, difficult to accept this version on behalf of the prosecution. No reason is indicated as to why he should specifically and particularly notice these identifying marks on a dagger, which was kept near a “Kalasa” with its blade covered with cloth. It is, therefore, difficult to accept this version on behalf of the prosecution. In any event, this evidence may not be of much value in the absence of other evidence directly implicating the accused and that that was the weapon used in the commission of the crime. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the. evidence relating to the recovery should not be believed. The prosecution has heavily depended on the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9, who are stated to be the eye witnesses to the assault on the deceased Ramachandra Reddy. P.W. 7, Badesab, has spoken to the fact of conspiracy between A-1 to A-6 to do away with the deceased Ramachandra Reddy at the instance of A-6. He has referred to one or two attempts made on the life of Ramchandra Reddy within 8 days prior to the date of the occurrence. As to the conspiracy immediately anterior to the date of the occurrence, he has referred to 3 other persons, Dommarivenkataraya, Papagari Venkatarayadu and Munivenkata as having participated in the fowl curry dinner on the previous night. He has stated that A-6 after giving instructions to do away with Ramachandra Reddy, went away to Bangalore. He has also proceeded to state that pursuant to this conspiracy A-1 to A-6 along with several other coolies went to the land in question to plough and sow with groundnut seeds. It was in the evening that the deceased Ramachandra Reddy and P.W. 8. Hussain Sab, came on the scene. This witness pleaded with Ramachandra Reddy that he was only a cooly of A-6 and that he was working as such. Thereupon Ramachandra Reddy is said to have thrust A-1 with his umbrella and therefore, A-1 to A-4 caught hold of him. It was then that A-1 took out a dagger from his waist and stabbed him in his chest and further inflicted the other injuries on him and stopped only when the dagger broke into two in the process. After seeing this, P.W. 7, Badesab, went back to his house at Settikere and was later on examined by the police. It was then that A-1 took out a dagger from his waist and stabbed him in his chest and further inflicted the other injuries on him and stopped only when the dagger broke into two in the process. After seeing this, P.W. 7, Badesab, went back to his house at Settikere and was later on examined by the police. The learned Sessions Judge has not accepted his evidence, in our opinion, rightly. It is clear from his evidence that only one dagger had been used in the assault until it broke into two . It is also clear that he took the separated blade and chased P.W. 8 with it. This witness has also been examined later on at the inquest. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 16, the Investigating Officer, that many of the relevant and material particulars had not been spoken to at all by him at the time of the inquest. He has been the servant of A-5 and A-6 only for a period. of 20 days prior to the occurrence. It is, therefore, highly improbable that a servant of this character would be taken into confidence by A-5 and A-6 while discussing matters relating to the murder of Ramachandra Reddy. Furthermore, if the evidence of this witness were to be believed regarding the conspiracy on the previous night, one cannot imagine as to why there should be a number of coolies to assist them in the matter of ploughing operations. There were several women among coolies. What is more, on the morning of 22nd July, 1967, A-6 appears to have departed after leaving instructions to the other accused. If the coolies have been collected for the ploughing operation in the land in question, it is reasonable to suppose that it was done during the earlier part of the day. From this it follows that these people must have been on the land from the morning to evening when the assault is said to have taken place. This would not be the normal conduct of conspirators who want to commit a murder, especially when so many coolies are about. This witness also makes it appear that only the dagger, consisting of M.O. 1 and M.O. 4, was used in the assault. The medical evidence is quite clear that only 3 of the injuries could have been inflicted with a dagger of this nature. This witness also makes it appear that only the dagger, consisting of M.O. 1 and M.O. 4, was used in the assault. The medical evidence is quite clear that only 3 of the injuries could have been inflicted with a dagger of this nature. All the remaining injuries out of the total number of 13 should have been inflicted by other weapons. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in refusing to act upon this evidence. Similar is the case with the evidence of P.W. 8, Hussain Sab. This witness is said to have been a maistry of the deceased attending to his business of works contract. According to this witness, he and the deceased Ramachandra Reddy went during the afternoon of the day of the occurrence to supervise and pay the coolies attending to the work of digging up trenches for the purpose of planting mango plants on the land which was nearby the land on which the assault took place. On going to the spot, they found no coolies working. While returning they found the accused persons, except A-6, ploughing the land bearing S. No. 171 of Settikere Village, which was said to have been in the possession of the deceased. He has spoken to the assault in much the same manner as P.W. 7, Badesab. According to him, he was chased by A-1 along with others and he had to run away to the village where he narrated the events of the evening to Shanbog Venkatadasappa, P.W. 4. The version of this witness regarding the digging of a trench for planting of mango plants cannot be accepted. It is highly improbable that coolies attending to such work in rural parts and who are paid daily wages would go away without taking their dues in the evening. This would be particularly so when the work entrusted to them has been completed as stated by this witness. The evidence of this witness that he went and reported the matter to P.W. 4 has not been corroborated by the Shanbog P.W. 4. We are aware that this witness P.W. 4, has been allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. But, for reasons set out by the learned Sessions Judge we are in agreement with him that Exhibit P-3 could not be relied upon. We are aware that this witness P.W. 4, has been allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. But, for reasons set out by the learned Sessions Judge we are in agreement with him that Exhibit P-3 could not be relied upon. Exhibit P-3 is the complaint by P.W. 4, recording in his very words the narration of this witness. P.W. 3, who has been examined, has stated that that was not the complaint which he sent through P.W. 6, Thoti Narisiga, on the morning of 23rd July, 1967. According to him, this complaint was written upto the dictation of the Investigating Officer. Having regard to the circumstances that the F.I.R. prepared thereunder reached the Magistrate and the superior police officer concerned round about midnight of 23rd July, 1967, it cannot be said that the inference of the learned Sessions Judge was far fetched. At any rate, the evidence of P.W. 8 that he went and narrated the events that very evening to P.W. 4 remains uncorroborated. In the cross-examination of this witness several omissions have been brought out as between his present testimony and the deposition in the Committal Court and his statement before the police during the inquest and the investigation. Even as regards the manner of assault, there is no sufficient and acceptable corroboration between this witness and the others who are equally eye. witnesses to the occurrence. It is also suggested to this witness that he had some grievence against the accused in the case as he and they were related. We, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, as to the veracity of this witness. The last witness in this category is P.W. 9. P.W. 9, Hassan Bi, a cooly working on the land along with A-1 to A-6. For the reasons which prompted the learned Sessions Judge to discard the evidence of the other two witnesses, we agree that the evidence of this witness cannot also be relied upon for foisting the guilt on the accused. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the acquittal, of the accused should be maintained. However, before leaving the case, we are constrained to refer briefly to the procedure followed by the learned Sessions Judge in the course of the trial before him. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the acquittal, of the accused should be maintained. However, before leaving the case, we are constrained to refer briefly to the procedure followed by the learned Sessions Judge in the course of the trial before him. Of the 16 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 13 of them have been questioned by the Court, those left out being a formal, and immaterial and an hostile witness. Many of them have been questioned at length. In some cases, the questions put covered the same ground more or less traversed in cross-examination. In one instance at least omissions by way of contradictions have been elicited as between the testimony before him and the deposition before the committal Court. The Investigating Police Officers have been questioned at length even after a fairly full cross-examination of them by the defence. There is no doubt that under the provisions of section 165 of the Evidence Act the Court is invested with awide discretion to put any question to any witness, in any form, with a view to discover or obtain proof of any fact relevant or irrelevant. Because of the wide scope of this power, a Court should be circumspect in its exercise, always bearing in mind that it is designed to further the ends of justice. It should not be used in an inquisitorial manner. It is also no part of the duty of the Court to act as Counsel for one or the other of the parties, as the primary duty of a Court is to weigh evidence for both parties and come to a decision in the case on such evidence. It ought not to lay itself open to a suspicion, by exercising this power in such a manner as will create an apprehension in the mind of one or the other party, that it is biased. In the instant case, it would be sufficient to observe that the manner in which the Court has exercised this discretion, conferred by the statutory provision of section 165 of the Evidence Act, leaves much to be desired. We, however, wish to add that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge has not prejudiced the trial, one way or the other. For the reasons stated above, the appeal deserves to fail and is accordingly dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.