Judgment MEHTAB S.GILL, J. 1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused/appellant Didar Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, aged 50 years, resident of Village Akkanwali by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his judgment/order dated April 25, 1995. Criminal revision has also been filed by complainant Bhura Singh. Both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal revision, being of the same occurrence, will be taken up together in this judgment. 2. The machinery of the prosecution was set into motion by the statement of Bhura Singh (complainant). Bhura Singh, who appeared as PW-1, gave his statement, Exhibit PA, before Assistant Sub Inspector Nasib Singh in Police Station Sardulgarh to the effect that he is a resident of Village Sardulgarh. He has two brothers, the eldest being Sukhdev Singh, younger to him being Surjit Singh and Bhura Singh himself being the youngest. His father Mangal Singh had died about seven years before the occurrence. His grand father Assa Singh ad two brothers, namely, Deva Singh and Rana Singh. Rana Singh had died issueless and his land was transferred in the name of Bhura Singhs grand father whose name was Assa Singh and to Assa Singhs brother Deva Singh. The complainants grand father Assa Singh and Deva Singh were real brothers, Mangal Singh, the father of the complainant, was the only son of Assa Singh, but Deva Singh had three sons by the names of Chand Singh (deceased), Bant Singh died as a bachelor and Mukand Singh was also a bachelor. Deva Singh has a daughter by the name of Bibi and her husbands name was Mukhtiar Singh. Out of the wedlock of Bibi and Mukhtiar Singh, there were two sons, namely, Didar Singh (accused), Sukhwinder Singh and Nikki, the daughter. From the above, it comes out that Chand Singh, Bant Singh and Mukand Singh were all unmarried. Mukand Singh was not traceable for the last 35 years, while Bant Singh died and Chand Singh had no issue, so, he resided with the complainant and his brothers, who used to look after him. The complainant along with his brothers used to look after their own cattle and cattle of Chand Singh in his (Chand Singh) house, who had transferred his land through a collusive decree to the three brothers, namely, Bhura Singh (PW-1), Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) and Surjit Singh, all sons of Mangal Singh. The complainant along with his brothers used to look after their own cattle and cattle of Chand Singh in his (Chand Singh) house, who had transferred his land through a collusive decree to the three brothers, namely, Bhura Singh (PW-1), Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) and Surjit Singh, all sons of Mangal Singh. The mutation of this land had been sanctioned. On September 7, 1993 at about 6.00 p.m. Bhura Singh and his brother Sukhwinder Singh were putting fodder before the cattle. Chand Singh (deceased), whose age was about 80 years was sick and was lying on a cot in the Darwaza (entrance of the house). Accused-Didar Singh, who is the son of the sister of Chand Singh (deceased), and resided in Village Akkanwali, armed with a gandasa, entered the house, and within the sight of PWs Bhura Singh and Sukhdev Singh gave a gandasa blow on the back side of neck of Chand Singh; another blow on his left shoulder and another two gandasa blows from its blunt side on the left shoulder of Chand Singh. It has been further alleged that accused Didar Singh said," I have taught him a lesson for getting the decree of the land executed." Bhura Singh and Sukhwinder Singh tried to catch hold of the accused, but he attacked them also. They stepped back. Accused Didar Singh ran away with his gandasa. They tried to catch hold of him and ran after him. As they were following him, Darshan Singh son of Darbara Singh also joined them, but the chase proved to be futile as accused Didar Singh ran away. 3. The police was informed and within five minutes, the Investigating Officer came to the spot. After preparing the inquest report, he sent the dead body of Chand Singh at night to the Civil Hospital Sardulgarh. The postmortem was performed on the dead body of Chand Singh on September 8, 1993. The Doctors report is reproduced as under :- "On 8-9-93 at 7.10 a.m., I conducted postmortem on the body of Chand Singh son of Deva Singh, resident of Village Sardulgarh of about 80 years, male, District Mansa. The body was brought by C. Lakhmir Singh No. 235 and C. Gurjant Singh No. 290 Police Station Sardulgarh. The body was identified by Sukhdev Singh son of Mangal Singh, resident of village Sardulgarh and Charanjit Singh son of Darbara Singh, resident of Sardulgarh. The body was brought by C. Lakhmir Singh No. 235 and C. Gurjant Singh No. 290 Police Station Sardulgarh. The body was identified by Sukhdev Singh son of Mangal Singh, resident of village Sardulgarh and Charanjit Singh son of Darbara Singh, resident of Sardulgarh. The body was brought from Sardulgarh from the house of Chand Singh. Information furnished by the police-alleged to be died due to injuries. 4. The body was of an old male of about 80 years old, moderately built and poorly nourished and wearing whitish blood stained shirt, linedar parna which was also blood stained around scalp and whitish Chadra around the waist. The body was 5 feet 8 inches in length. Rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs. Post-mortem staining was present on the nape of neck, and back of chest and both buttocks. I found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound 18 cms x 3.5 cms on the left side of neck, 3 cms below pinna. The wound was lying obliquely. Clotted blood was present. The wound was bone deep. On dissection underlying muscles, tissues were cut. Both major carotid blood vessels were cut. The wound and extending just near the front of mid line of neck. Underlying 4th cervical vertebra was also cut. Clotted blood was present.2. Incised wound 8 cms x 1 cm on the left side of neck just below injury No. 1 and wound muscle deep. Clotted blood was present and the wound was lying obliquely.3. Linear abrasion 8 cms long on the top of left shoulder joint lying obliquely. 4. Abrasion 4 cms x 1.5 cms on the anterior lateral aspect of left shoulder joint. Clotted blood was present. 5. Abrasion 6 cms x 1 cm on the left parietal and front of left side of chest. Clotted blood was present. 6. Abrasion 4 cms x 1 cm on the lower part of left side of neck. Clotted blood was present. 5. Stomach and its contents were healthy and contained 3 to 4 ounces of fluid. Small intestines were healthy and contained chyme. Large intestines were healthy and contained faecal matter. The bladder was healthy and contained about 200 mls. of urine. All other organs were healthy. 6. In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries described. Small intestines were healthy and contained chyme. Large intestines were healthy and contained faecal matter. The bladder was healthy and contained about 200 mls. of urine. All other organs were healthy. 6. In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries described. All the injuries described were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. I handed over to the police sutured body after postmortem, carbon copy of the postmortem report, police papers 1 to 12 pages duly signed by me, sample seal sealed packet bearing 4 seals containing belongings of the deceased. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate to few hours. Probable time that elapsed between death and postmortem was within 24 hours. Exhibit PX is the carbon copy of postmortem report. It is in my hand and signed by me. Exhibits PX/1 and PX/2 are the pictorial diagrams showing the seats of injuries. Exhibit PN is the request of the police to conduct postmortem examination. In this case, I received papers at 6.30 a.m. on September 8, 1993. My endorsement is Ex. PN/1. Exhibit PF is the inquest report. On 13-10-1993 ASI Nasib Singh moved application Ex. PY. On this application my endorsement is Ex. PY/1 vide which I declared that injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could be with the sharp side of the gandasa and injury Nos. 4, 5 and 6 could be with blunt side of the gandasa."When this witness was cross-examined, he stated thus :- "Rigor mortis was well developed and postmortem staining was well fixed. It is correct that in the month of September, the climate in this area is moderate. It is more probable that period between death and postmortem examination in this case was between 12 and 24 hours. It is incorrect to suggest that in the ordinary course, we mention the interval of time with a distance of six hours. Fluid which was found in the stomach could be morning tea. It is correct that injury No. 1 was only the fatal injury and others were simple in nature. Injuries No. 3 to 6 are abrasions and hence superficial. Fluid which was found in the stomach could be morning tea. It is correct that injury No. 1 was only the fatal injury and others were simple in nature. Injuries No. 3 to 6 are abrasions and hence superficial. It is not possible for me to tell if the victim was in sitting or standing position or in any other position at the time of receipt of injuries No. 3 to 5. It is not possible for me to tell the posture of the victim when injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused. It is correct that abrasions are usually caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 3 being a linear abrasion must have been caused by edge of a weapon of sharp side. When there is linear abrasion of this type it is not necessary that there should be a cut in the shirt. There may or may not have been a mark of cut on the shirt in such cases. Some blood is likely to ooze in case of linear abrasion by sharp edged weapon. . . . ." 7. We have heard Shri T. S. Sangha, counsel for the appellant and Shri Randhir Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab along with Shri A. P. Deol, who has appeared in Criminal revision No. 139-DB of 1996 on behalf of the complainant. 8. The occurrence, as alleged, took place on September 7, 1993 at 6.00 p.m. in Sardulgarh town. First Information Report was recorded on September 7, 1993 at 6.20 p.m. in Police Station Sardulgarh and the Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa on September 7, 1993 at 8.30 p.m. Though the lodging of the First Information Report and the Special Report reaching the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa, seems to be prompt, but it is not so, as discussed in the later part of the judgment. This is a case where it is alleged that accused/appellant Didar Singh attacked his own maternal uncle (Mama) inflicting grievous injuries on him. The eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Bhura Singh (PW-1) and Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) are the first cousins of the accused. The dispute between the eye-witnesses and the accused was regarding the property as to who would bequeath the property of Chand Singh (deceased). 9. A civil suit was filed on August 26, 1992 by Sukhdev Singh and others against Chand Singh. The dispute between the eye-witnesses and the accused was regarding the property as to who would bequeath the property of Chand Singh (deceased). 9. A civil suit was filed on August 26, 1992 by Sukhdev Singh and others against Chand Singh. The collusive suit was decided on November 3, 1992 and an order, Exhibit PD, was passed on November 3, 1992. Decree-sheet, Exhibit PE, was prepared. On the basis of this collusive decree, mutation Exhibit PU, was sanctioned in the names of Bhura Singh (PW-1), Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) and Surjit Singh on December 11, 1992. Before this collusive decree was passed, Bhura Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Surjit Singh had got a will executed and registered in their favour by Chand Singh in the year 1988. As alleged by the prosecution, Didar Singh (accused) was angry on this count with Chand Singh (deceased), that he had given all his property and had not divided the same in equal shares between Bhura Singh and others and Didar Singh (accused). 10. Shri T. S. Sangha, Advocate for the appellant at the very outset attacked the case of the prosecution by contending that, where was the need for a collusive decree when Bhura Singh (PW-1) and Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) already had a registered will in their favour. It was they alone, who were not trusting Chand Singh (deceased) and were apprehensive that he may give the share of land of Didar Singh-accused to him and it is exclusively they (complainant-party), who have done away with Chand Singh, and have got a false First Information Report registered against Didar Singh accused. 11. Going through the statement of Bhura Singh (PW-1), the contention of Shri Sangha is correct as Bhura Singh (PW-1) has stated in his statement, which is reproduced as under :- ". . . .Chand Singh had made an application in the Court of the Collector, Jhunir for getting the land of his brother Mukand Singh mutated in his name because Mukand Singh had been missing for the previous 35-40 years. I and my brothers also applied for becoming parties in those proceedings because there was will in our favour. The will in our favour was made by Chand Singh. . ." 12. I and my brothers also applied for becoming parties in those proceedings because there was will in our favour. The will in our favour was made by Chand Singh. . ." 12. From the statement, as quoted above, one can make out that the sole motive of the complainant was to get the property of Chand Singh and Mukand Singh, the other bachelor uncle of the complainant. For the sake of repetition, Chand Singh and Mukand Singh were real brothers. This statement of the complainant shows that he was ready to go to this extent to challenge Chand Singh in the Court which he did. In defence, the accused has produced Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (DW-1), who deposed that he has examined the case file titled Sukhdev Singh V/s. Chand Singh, Civil Suit No. 741 of 1992 which was decided on November 3, 1992. This pertains to a collusive decree obtained by Sukhdev Singh. He is a document expert and has stated that the thumb impression on the Vakalatnama and the written statement are the same, but they do not tally with the thumb impression of the statement given by Chand Singh (deceased) before the Court. Thus, we can come to the conclusion that a different person was brought before the Court, who made the statement that the land of Chand Singh be transferred to Bhura Singh and others and that person posed himself before the Court to be Chand Singh. This also shows the mala fide intentions of the complainant-party to usurp the land of Chand Singh. 13. Coming back to the lodging of the First Information Report, it has come in evidence that the Police Station Sardulgarh is only 300 yards away from the place of occurrence. Assistant Sub Inspector Nasib Singh, the Investigating Officer (PW-6) has stated that he had come at the spot within five minutes of the occurrence. Since the Police Station is only 300 yards away and the Investigating Officer had reached within five minutes, then one cannot come to this conclusion that the Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mansa well within time. 14. Going through the statement of Doctor Rajinder Singh Garg (PW-7), who performed the postmortem on the dead body of Chand Singh, has stated that rigor mortis was well developed and the period that elapsed between the death and post mortem was 12 to 24 hours. 14. Going through the statement of Doctor Rajinder Singh Garg (PW-7), who performed the postmortem on the dead body of Chand Singh, has stated that rigor mortis was well developed and the period that elapsed between the death and post mortem was 12 to 24 hours. He has further stated that the fluid which was found in the stomach could be morning tea. If the rigor mortis was well developed and it being the month of September, the time of occurrence does not seem to be 6.00 p.m., but a few hours before that. The fluid, which is morning tea, is very intriguing and supports the case of the appellant that the occurrence had not taken place at 6.00 p.m. but some time before that. The lodging of the First Information Report is not prompt. It was lodged after consultations and confabulations. 15. The most important question which arises now for consideration is whether eye-witnesses, i.e., Bhura Singh (PW-1) and Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) were present at the time of occurrence and whether Darshan Singh (PW-4) confronted the accused as he has stated. Appellant-accused Didar Singh, as going by the statement given in the Court, is an aged man of 50 years and he lives in village Akkanwali, which is 40 kms. away from Sardulgarh. As stated by Bhura Singh (PW-1) that he along with his brother Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) had cut fodder for the cattle at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. and were carrying the fodder in a basket to the cattle, which were tied in the compound. The accused at about 6.00 p.m. came, armed with a gandasa, and straightaway attacked Chand Singh (deceased), who was lying in a room, which is called the Darwaza. Bhura Singh and Sukhdev Singh were standing on the other side of the cot. They tried to intervene but the accused tried to give them blow with the gandasa so, they retreated. The accused ran away. Bhura Singh (PW-1) and Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) ran behind the accused for a distance of 30 to 35 karams. They also shouted, but no one came to their help. It has been further stated that the house of deceased-Chand Singh is located in the middle of Sardulgarh town and there are residential houses around it. The accused ran away. Bhura Singh (PW-1) and Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) ran behind the accused for a distance of 30 to 35 karams. They also shouted, but no one came to their help. It has been further stated that the house of deceased-Chand Singh is located in the middle of Sardulgarh town and there are residential houses around it. Further, it has come in the testimony of Darshan Singh (PW-4) that when he was at a distance of 30-35 karams from the house of Chand Singh deceased, he heard a raula and saw that the accused Didar Singh was being chased by Bhura Singh and Sukhdev Singh. He has further stated that he tried to catch hold of the accused, but could not do so as he had a gandasa in his hand. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-4 Darshan Singh has stated that his mother and the mother of Bhura Singh are real sisters, thus, being a close relative. The age of Darshan Singh, as stated, when he appeared before the Court, is 36-37 years. The age of Bhura Singh (PW-1), as stated, before the Court is 24 years and that of Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) is 35 years. The three witnesses, who were close relatives, were younger in age than the accused Didar Singh, who was 50 years. It is strange that though the occurrence took place in day light, the three could not catch hold of the accused. It is further not believable that accused Didar Singh whose village is at a distance of 40 kms from Village Sardulgarh, came on foot and ran away. Thus, we have come to the conclusion that the eye-witnesses, namely, Bhura Singh (PW-1), Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) and Darshan Singh (PW-4) were not present when the occurrence took place. The accused, as alleged by the prosecution, could not have run away so easily after killing Chand Singh, if the three able bodied witnesses were present at the scene of occurrence. 16. For the foregoing conclusions, the appeal is allowed and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, he is, accordingly, acquitted of the charge framed against him. 17. Since Criminal Appeal has been allowed, we do not want to interfere in the Criminal Revision No. 139-DB of 1996 filed by Bhura Singh (complainant). Therefore, it stands dismissed.