Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :- On 18th January 1995, at about 8 or 8.30 a.m. Vijay since deceased, was going from his house towards the bazar for shopping and had gone a short distance, when the three accused Shibu alias Shiv Narain, Surender Singh armed with a pharsa and Bhagat Singh armed with a sword accosted him and Shibu told him that they were going to teach him a lesson for the slaps that had been given to him on 16th January, 1995. Shibu then caught hold of Vinay in his grip, whereas Bhagat Singh inflicted a sword blow on his left thigh, while Surender accused aimed a blow on his leg which did not hit its target. On receipt of the injuries, Vijay cried "Mar diya, Mar diya", which attracted Attar Singh-PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6, the brother and first cousin of the deceased respectively, and one Inder to the place of incident. All the accused then ran away from the spot. Vijay was, thereafter, taken to his house and then to the Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh in a tractor by Attar Singh and some others, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The dead body nevertheless reached the hospital, on which the doctor sent information vide Ex.PE to the police, which brought ASI Ranbir Singh to the hospital. He recorded the statement of Attar Singh Ex.PK at 11.50 a.m. and on its basis, a formal F.I.R. Ex.PK/2 was registered at Police Station, Bahadurgarh at 12.05 p.m.; the special report being delivered locally at 12.35 p.m. The S.H.O./Inspector Sumer Singh, also visited the place of occurrence and made the necessary investigation at the spot. The accused were arrested on 18th January, 1995 and on their interrogation and disclosure statements, a pharsa and a sword were recovered. On completion of the investigation, accused Bhagat Singh was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while the others were charged for the same offence with the aid of Section 34 thereof and as they claimed to be innocent, were brought to trial. 2. The prosecution in support of its case examined inter alia, Dr. 2. The prosecution in support of its case examined inter alia, Dr. K.L. Kahturia, PW-2, who had sent the ruqa Ex.PE to the police station intimating that the dead body of Vijay had been brought to the civil hospital; PW-3 Tek Chand, a witness to the arrest of the accused; PW-4 Ram Niwas, a witness of the recovery of the sword at the instance of Bhagat Singh, the two eye witnesses Attar Singh-PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6; Dr. Manju Arora-PW-7 who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body and had found one incised wound 3 x 2 cm in dimension on the left side of the thigh, 16 cm below the anterior superior illiac spine on the left side; and PW-8 S.I. Raghbir Singh, who had recorded the statement Ex.PK which formed the basis of the First Information Report. Inder, who was stated to be one of the eye witnesses, was, however, given up as unnecessary. 3. The accused were then examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they pleaded innocence and stated that Vijay was a victim of a blind murder and that they had been implicated on the basis of strained relations between the parties. They also examined Ram Lal-DW1 in their defence. 4. The trial Court concluded that the enmity between the parties stood proved as they had been on opposite sides in the panchayat elections and on account of this factor, Shibu accused who had abused Attar Singh a day or two earlier from the date of incident, had been given a beating by him. The Court also found that the prosecution story as narrated by Attar Singh PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6 was most natural as the time of incident coincided with the time when the villagers would normally go out to answer the call of nature on a winter morning. The trial Court, accordingly, held that a case of murder was clearly spelt out from the facts of the case and the two accused Shibu and Surender Singh, though they had caused no injury to the deceased, had also been involved in the attack and having held as above, convicted and sentenced all the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for three months. 5. 250/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for three months. 5. Two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the trial Court, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 527-DB of 1995 by Shibu alias Shiv Narain and Surender Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 547-DB of 1995 by Bhagat Singh. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment. 6. Mr. Baldev Singh, the learned senior counsel representing Bhagat Singh in Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 1995, has argued that from the evidence that had come on record, it was apparent that the murder was a blind one and the prosecution witnesses had been procured after the incident had come to light. In this connection, he has drawn our attention that in the Daily Diary Report pertaining to the incident, the names of Rajinder and Inder did not figure and it had not even been mentioned as to whether Attar Singh had witnessed the occurrence or not. He has also pointed out that the presence of Attar Singh PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6 at the spot was purely fortuitous as there was absolutely no reason for them to have been present at that place at the crucial time. He has further pointed out that the presence of these persons was also belied by the fact that the medical evidence did not support their versions and it was on that account that the witnesses as also SI Raghbir Singh had to change their story with regard to the role first ascribed to Surender Singh appellant who was allegedly armed with a pharsa as only one injury had been found on the dead body. 7. The learned State counsel has, however, laid special emphasis on the fact that the motive for the offence stood proved as both the parties were on opposite sides in the panchayat elections which had been held a short while earlier and on account of the mis-behaviour of Shibu accused on the 16th January, 1995, Attar Singh-PW5 had given him a beating. He has also pointed out that the First Information Report had been promptly lodged and as such, no infirmity could be spelt out in the prosecution story. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. 9. He has also pointed out that the First Information Report had been promptly lodged and as such, no infirmity could be spelt out in the prosecution story. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. 9. We are of the opinion that the presence of Attar Singh PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6 at the spot is difficult to accept. In D.D.R. No. 15 which pertains to the present incident, the names of Rajinder and Inder have not been mentioned and the fact that as to whether Attar Singh was an eye witness, has also not been clearly spelt out. Moreover, it appears to us that the description of the attack given by the two witnesses also belies their presence for two reasons; firstly, that in the F.I.R., it has been clearly stated that two injuries had been caused to the deceased i.e. one by Bhagat Singh with a sword and the other by Surender Singh with a pharsa. The post mortem report, however, speaks of only one injury by Bhagat Singh. It was to cover this situation that both Attar Singh PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6, in the course of their statements given in Court, for the first time stated that though Surender Singh had aimed a pharsa blow on the left thigh, yet no injury had been caused to the deceased as, he had, at the crucial time, been able to move his leg out of harms way. There is yet another circumstance which belies the prosecution case and also shows that the investigation has not been fair. In column 10 of the inquest report Ex.PL/2 (original Hindi version), it is apparent that a serious interpolation has been made to fit in with the new story. We find that the presence of the injury on the ankle allegedly caused by Suridner Singh was first noted and then by interpolating the word "nahi", the effort has been made to show that there was no second injury on the deceased. This interpolation is further evident from the fact that an injury which was present would alone find mention in the document and not a negative fact that there was no injury. This interpolation is further evident from the fact that an injury which was present would alone find mention in the document and not a negative fact that there was no injury. The counsel, therefore, appears to be right in placing reliance on Sat Darshan Kalia v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 371, in which this Court has held that where the investigation had not been fair and an interpolation had been made in some important document, a serious doubt could be created with regard to the integrity of the investigation and the veracity of the prosecutions story. 10. There is yet another significant circumstance to show that the two eye witnesses had not seen the occurrence. PW-5 Attar Singh had clearly stated in his evidence that a sword blow had been inflicted on the thigh of Vijay from the height of the arm of the assailant Bhagat Singh. Likewise, Rajinder-PW6 in his statement had stated that Bhagat Singh had inflicted a blow in a thrusting manner. Dr. Manju Arora PW-4, who had conducted the post mortem examination was cross-examined in extenso by the defence counsel as to the inferences that could be drawn on the medical evidence and she clearly stated that as the direction of the injury was from below to upwards and as the attack had been made from "straight front and stabbing, then this injury was not possible while standing. If one tries to cause this injury from sword from upward to downward, even then, this injury cannot be caused" and further "in the event of the assailant and the injured standing, assailant has to bend down and take the weapon in such a low position, at least from the side of the entry wound, otherwise, in standing position, this injury cannot be caused." It bears repetition that Vijay had been in a standing position when he had been caused the injury by Bhagat Singh. The doctor has clearly opined that the injury in question could not have caused as the victim and the assailant were both standing in a normal posture. It can, thus, be deduced from the evidence of the doctor that in this situation, the injury could have been found either parallel to the ground or moving from upward to downward. 11. The presence of the eye witnesses is further belied by another obvious circumstance. It can, thus, be deduced from the evidence of the doctor that in this situation, the injury could have been found either parallel to the ground or moving from upward to downward. 11. The presence of the eye witnesses is further belied by another obvious circumstance. As per the prosecution story, Shibu accused had been given a few slaps by Attar Singh PW-5 after he had abused him on the evening of 16th January, 1995. Vijay had not even been present at the time when the slaps had been administered. It is, therefore, obvious that if Shibu bore any malice, it would have been towards Attar Singh and had he been present at the spot standing close by witnessing the attack on Vijay, he would not have been allowed to go scot free and unscathed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for the reason given above, the prosecution story suffers from glaring infirmities. We, therefore, allow both the appeals. The appellants are acquitted of the offence for which they stand charged. Appeals allowed.