JUDGMENT 1. 1. These two appeals, one filed from jail and one field through counsel, impugned the order of conviction under Secs. 447, 323 and 302 I.RC. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 15.3.1977. 2. The prosecution story stated briefly is that on 14.6.1975 when Rawat Ram came to field survey No. 226 which belonged to his family, saw that the accused Bhalla Ram and Beenja Ram are forcibly cultivating the field. He therefore, deputed one person to call the senior citizens and the father of the accused to look into the dispute and decide it. Accordingly, some persons along with RW. 1 Bhoma came towards the field, while going, it was heard that assault has taken place and therefore, those persons accompanying the witness RW. 1 Bhoma went back. When the witness reached the field, he saw the accused assaulting Rawat Ram and wife of the witness Gawri. After the assailants left the body of Gawari, she was carried to the house of Teela Das and then first information report was lodged, on the basis of which, investigation was conducted arid the accused persons were prosecuted. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses to prove its case. Out of 27 witnesses, RW. 1, PW. 2, RW. 3 and RW. 6 are eye-witnesses. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have re-scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 4. P.W. 1 Bhoma is brother of the deceased Rawat Ram and husband of deceased Gawri. He has deposed that when he reached survey No. 226, he saw Beenja Ram armed with stick and accused Bhalla Ram had 'Bei' in his hand. The witness then stated that when Rawat Ram objected to the cultivation of the field by the accused, they assaulted Rawat Ram and when Gawari wife of Bhoma tried to intervene, she was also assaulted. The witnesses has given good description of the assault. He attributes land dispute as the cause of the assault. The witness then states that Rawat Ram was taken to the house of Teela Das, from where a cot was brought and Gawari was also taken to the house of Teela Das on the cot. He has also deposed to assault on his person by the accused. He also speaks of assault on his brother Dharu by Bhalla Ram. The witness then states that Rawat Ram was taken to the house of Teela Das, from where a cot was brought and Gawari was also taken to the house of Teela Das on the cot. He has also deposed to assault on his person by the accused. He also speaks of assault on his brother Dharu by Bhalla Ram. Thereafter, the accused ran away and the complainant party took Gawri to the hospital where she died. The witness then states that from the scene of offence, police seized a stick which was discovered by the witness himself. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated the claim that he has discovered the stick and the accused. He has identified the same in court. 5. RW. 2 Dharu Ram is another eye-witness examined by the prosecution. He is also brother of the deceased. He has deposed that the dispute related to agricultural land cultivation and on the day when the assault occurred, they were told by the shepherd boys that our field is being forcibly cultivated by the sons of Kuma Ram i.e., the present accused persons. The witness had gone to call the village head and others. He went to call Kuma Ram father of accused Bhalla Ram. He then deposed that Kuma Ram said that; " dqek us dgk dje QwVk Nksdjk dk eSa uk tkmWa eq>s Hkh ekj nsA " 6. He them claims to have returned to the field to see Beenja Ram assaulting Rawat Ram with stick. Another blow was given on the forehead and both the injuries resulted in profuse bleeding. According to the witness, then Bhalla Ram assaulted Gawari wife of Bhoma with 'Bei' which resulted in intestine protruding out of the stomach. He then stated that they took the injured towards the house for taking them to hospital when the accused persons came again and assaulted Bhoma as a result of which, dead body of Grawari fell down. It is pertinent to note that the witness refers to dead body of Gawari whereas RW. 1 refers to Gawari dying later on in the hospital. He then speaks of assault on himself and Bhoma and claims that Gawari was -brought to the house of Teela Das where the dead body was lying for about three days. He then claims that except himself, Gawari and Rawata Ram, nobody was there. 1 refers to Gawari dying later on in the hospital. He then speaks of assault on himself and Bhoma and claims that Gawari was -brought to the house of Teela Das where the dead body was lying for about three days. He then claims that except himself, Gawari and Rawata Ram, nobody was there. Yet there is evidence regarding injuries on the person of Bhoma and Dharu Ram. He then says that he had gone to the Police Station in the night. It would be necessary to note what has been stated by the witness vernacular; " Fkkuk jkr dks vk;k Fkk nks rhu fnu ckn vk;k FkkA " The witness has been cross-examined. Basically the suggestion being that it was in family dispute that the accused with others injured Rawata Ram. 7. RW. 3 is Moda Ram second brother of the deceased who is another eye-witness. He states that how Rawata Ram and Gawari were assaulted by Bhalla Ram and Beenja Ram. He has then stated that the assault was witnessed by him, Bhoma and Dharu. He also names wife of Teela Das and Bhoja Ram. He then speaks of the accused again assaulted when they were carrying the injured to the house of Teela Das. He then states that Bhoma RW. 1 fell down on the ground and was injured by stone. He does not speak any assault on Bhoma and Dharu by the accused persons. He claims that Gawari died on the second day of reaching the hospital. In the cross-examination, he has stated that; " fryknkl ds ;gkWa xojh dks ysdj x;s rks ogkWa Hkh [kwu cgqr fxjkA vkarMs+ rks BsB rd ckgj jgs rhu fnu rd yk'k xojh dh fryknkl ds vkaxu esa iM+h jghA " 8. If this statement is correct, the earlier statement that Gawari died in the hospital in the second day is false. Apart from this, there are several contradictions in the depositions of this witness. Four of the two eye- witnesses say that the dead body was lying in the house of Teela Das for about three days whereas the others do not mention about it. 9. It is then claimed by two witnesses that Gawari died in the hospital after some time whereas two other eye-witnesses claim that the dead body was lying in the house of Teela Das for about three days. 9. It is then claimed by two witnesses that Gawari died in the hospital after some time whereas two other eye-witnesses claim that the dead body was lying in the house of Teela Das for about three days. The testimony of P.W. 6 Saran who is another eye-witness of the prosecution gives entire different story. She also claims to be an eye-witness but has stated that Rawata Ram was profusely bleeding whereas the bleeding of Gawari was very slight. This witness does not speak of any injury to the stomach of the Gawari resulting in intestine coming out. However, in chief, she has stated that Gawari was profusely bleeding and Gawari was taken to the hospital. She has then claimed that face of Rawata Ram was so swollen, it was beyond recognition. It would be necessary to note what has been stated by the witness; " jkors dk psgjk lqt dj pkj xquk gks x;k Fkk o igpkuus esa Hkh ugha vkrk Fkk eSaus Hkh ;g le>k fd dkSu tku ldrk fd ;g esjk nsoj gSA 'kjhj iwjk lwt x;k FkkA 'kjhj esa txg&txg lkstu vk xbZ FkhA " 10. Then the witness says that it was she who discovered the stick and 'Bei' and handed over the same to the Police. It is contrary that what has been claimed by RW. 1 Bhoma. It will be seen from all the evidence of so called eye-witnesses that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 11. Then there is an important testimony of RW. 23 Dr. Sohan Singh who has stated on oath that he conducted the post mortem of both the dead bodies and duration of injuires was about 18 to 20 hours prior to the post mortem and the body was in early stage of decomposition in relation to Gawari. He says that the death was caused about 12 hours prior to post mortem examination. If this deposition of the Doctor is to be accepted, the testimony of eye-witnesses that the bodies were lying for three days becomes unacceptable. However, the Doctor then says that he cannot express any opinion of the duration of injuries of both the deceased meaning thereby that the injuries could have been caused even four days ago. If this deposition of the Doctor is to be accepted, the testimony of eye-witnesses that the bodies were lying for three days becomes unacceptable. However, the Doctor then says that he cannot express any opinion of the duration of injuries of both the deceased meaning thereby that the injuries could have been caused even four days ago. In such state of evidence, several serious doubts arise regarding the manner in which incident took place and regarding the allegation made by the complainant against the accused persons. 12. Then there is an unexplained delay of 11 hours in lodging first information report, nothing has been stated either by the Investigating Officer or by the witness as to why the report was not lodged immediately in the afternoon when the offence was alleged to have occurred at 11.30 a.m. If the offence occurred at 11.30 a.m. and Gawari reached to the hospital immediately, thereafter nothing prevented the witness or the complainant party from reaching the Police Station and lodging the first information report immediately, however, this was not done. The Doctor then claims that he cannot give exact time of even duration of injuries found on the dead bodies. The possibility that the persons were dead for more than two days cannot therefore be overruled. In such an event, the delay in filing the first information report' is more than 48 hours. Totality of re-appreciation therefore results in creating doubts regarding truthfulness of the witness or the claim made by him. In such circumstances, it is clear case where several serious doubts arose on the testimony of so called eye-witnesses and it cannot be said with any certainty that the guilt of the accused persons is beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In the result, therefore, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned order is hereby set-aside. The accused are acquitted, they be released immediately if not required for any other offence.Appeal allowed. *******