JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th May, 1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 18/96 by learned Sessions Judge, Merta, convicting accused appellants under Section 364 Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned trial court also convicted them under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment whereof further undergo six months-rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The charges against accused appellants are that at 5:30 PM on 14.2.1996 in village Pancharda Khurd at the shop of PW-6 Dhema Ram, Kumbha Ram accused hurled a 'Kassi' blow on the head of Mewa Ram, felling him down and thereafter, three accused appellants along with Babu Ram, who has been discharged by Police and Pappu Ram, who has been acquitted by the Juvenile court; started beating Mewa Ram simultaneously and did not rest content with that but dragged injured Mewa Ram in their residential house and gave further beating there. The injuries so sustained caused his death and therefore, the accused appellants were charged under Section 364 as also under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Upon pleading not guilty and claiming trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents in support of its case. In the statement given under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code accused appellants denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded false implication. Malla Ram, Prabhu Ram and Babu have been examined in defence. Thereafter, learned trial court relying upon testimony of PW-4 Likhma Ram, PW-11 Madu Ram and PW-12 Poona Ram, corroborated by the testimony of PW-16 Dr. Hari Prakash, convicted and sentenced them, as afore stated. 3. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellants, took us through the evidence and pointed out many glaring infirmities in the impugned judgment and submitted that Likhma Ram, Madu Ram and Poona Ram, prosecution witnesses were not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and have not deposed as such in their police statements given under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and have made significant improvements and exaggerations in the trial court, which has wrongly been believed. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment. 4. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. PW-4 Likhma Ram in the court became eye-witness of the occurrence and deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was sitting at the shop of Dhema Ram. There Khumba Ram came armed with a 'Kassi' and dealt a blow on head of Mewa Ram, felling him down and thereafter, all the accused gave injuries simultaneously and dragged injured Mewa Ram in their house. However, above facts were missing in his police statements Ex.D-1 and D-2. When attention of this witness was drawn to his police statements, he stated that he does not know how the Investigating Officer has not recorded the same even though he had disclosed above facts before him also. 5. This witness has been contradicted by portion A to B of Ex.D-2 in which it was written that after Mewa Ram was taken by the accused persons in their house, what happened with him, he does not know. However, on the contrary, in the court he deposed that after taking Mewa in the house, all the five accused again gave him severe beating. In addition to above contradictions, there were numerous and extensive improvements made by this witness in the court, which were not found in Police statement Ex.D-2. It has not been found mention in Ex.D-2 that Kumbha Ram accused gave a 'Kassi' blow on the head or Mewa Ram. It has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-2 that at the time of occurrence, this witness was present at the shop of Dhema Ram. Further, it has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-2 that from shop of Dhema Ram, Mewa Ram was dragged by the accused persons in their house. The witnesses has stated that he does not know how this version was not mentioned in Exs. D-1 and D-2. 6. Similarly, in Ex.D-1, on the contrary, it has been written that on 14.2.1996 at about 9 PM he was at him residential house in village Pancharda Kalan where PW-11 Madu Ram came and disclosed that Mewa Ram was given beating by Bhera Ram, Kumbha Ram, Arjun Ram, Pappu Ram etc. D-1 and D-2. 6. Similarly, in Ex.D-1, on the contrary, it has been written that on 14.2.1996 at about 9 PM he was at him residential house in village Pancharda Kalan where PW-11 Madu Ram came and disclosed that Mewa Ram was given beating by Bhera Ram, Kumbha Ram, Arjun Ram, Pappu Ram etc. and that Bhera Ram was also exhorting the co-accused to kill Mewa Ram whereupon this witness went to village Pancharda Khurd and came to know from the villagers that at the time of occurrence, Mewa Ram was sitting on 'Chabutri' of shop of Dhema Ram where Kumbha Ram gave blow from a 'Kassi', Arjun Ram gave blow from Lathi and Pappu Ram from a 'Kawadiya' and dragged Mewa Ram in their residential house. When the above portion A to B of Ex.D-1 was confronted to this witness, he denied to have given the same to the investigating Officer. These were significant improvements made by this witness in the court testimony yet have been ignored by the trial court conveniently, without any rhyme or reason. 7. Similar is the case with PW-11 Madu Ram. Though he has claimed to be an eye-witness in the court yet in his Police statements Ex.D-3, at portion A to B, it is written that this witness, after grazing his sheeps came to his house at 9 PM, where he came to know that Mewa Ram has been beaten to death. He was contradicted from portions C to D, E to F and G to H in his statement Ex.D-3 but has denied to have told the same to the Investigating Officer. In addition to above contradictions, there were material and significant omissions in his Police statement Ex.D-3 in which, like court deposition, it has not been written that this witness has seen the occurrence by his own eyes. Nowhere it has been written in Ex.D-3 that Kumbha Ram gave a 'Kassi' blow on the head of Mewa Ram and thereafter, all five accused persons gave beating to Mewa Ram. It has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-3 that Bhera Ram and Pappu Ram were armed with axes whereas Arjun and Babu were armed with 'Dangdi'. It has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-3 that Mewa Ram was dragged by these accused persons in the house of Bhera Ram and thereafter he was again given beating in the court-yard. It has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-3 that Bhera Ram and Pappu Ram were armed with axes whereas Arjun and Babu were armed with 'Dangdi'. It has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-3 that Mewa Ram was dragged by these accused persons in the house of Bhera Ram and thereafter he was again given beating in the court-yard. Further, it has also not been mentioned in Ex.D-3 that he had requested the accused persons to spare Mewa Ram. All these omissions and exaggerations were with regard to material particulars of the prosecution story, which were found missing in his Police statement Ex.D-3 and for the first time, in court statements, this witness has made significant improvements and exaggerated his version and has vainly tried to become an eye-witness of the occurrence. Had he been an eye-witness of the occurrence, he should have stated so to the Investigating Officer, sans it, his testimony can not be believed. 8. Case of PW-12 Poona Ram is worst. Though he has also stated to be an eye-witness of the occurrence in the court yet his name was not mentioned in the FIR. Similarly, had he seen the occurrence, he should have deposed so in his Police statement Ex.D-4. In the court, he has stated that the occurrence took place at about half-past five in the evening, at the shop of Dhema Ram whereas in portion A to B of Ex.D-4, the time of incident told by him was between 7 and half-past 7 in the evening. In Portions C to D of Ex.D-4, it was written that Mewa Ram, resident of Pancharda Kalan was also sitting on 'Chabutri' of shop of Dhema Ram. In portion E to F, Arja Ram S/o Joda Ram and Kana Ram S/o Rupa Ram were stated to be sitting on 'Chabutri' of Dhema Ram. In portion G to H, it is written that this witness gave a cigarette for smoking to Kumbha Ram. All these statements have been denied to have been told by this witness to the Investigating Officer. 9. PW-12 Poona Ram has again improved his version in the court from his Police statement Ex.D-4 where it is not written that blow of 'Kassi' was dealt with by Kumbha Ram to Mewa Ram while they were standing in front of each other. 9. PW-12 Poona Ram has again improved his version in the court from his Police statement Ex.D-4 where it is not written that blow of 'Kassi' was dealt with by Kumbha Ram to Mewa Ram while they were standing in front of each other. Unlike court statement, it is not mentioned in Ex.D-4 that accused Kumbha Ram hurled a 'Kassi' blow towards this witness also. He has further contradicted portion K to L of Ex.D-4 that after receiving blow of 'Kassi', Mewa Ram fell down and in the meanwhile. Arjun Ram, armed with a Lathi and Pappu Ram, armed with a 'Kawadiya', came at the site. Unlike court statement, it is also mentioned at portion M to N of Ex.D-4 that after beating, this witness went to his house instead of the house of Bhera Ram. 10. These were some of material contradictions and omissions which had affected testimonial value of these witnesses beyond repair, rendering them not worthy of credence. However, the trial court in a casual and cavalier manner, has based the conviction upon testimony of these witness, ignoring all the infirmities and deficiencies. 11. Out of 10 eye-witnesses, 7 have been declared hostile, who were PW-3 Pratap Ram, PW-5 Narain Ram, PW-6 Dhema Ram-in front of whose shop the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, PW-7 Janu Khan, PW-8 Girdhari, PW-9 Arja Ram and PW-10 Smt. Chidi. All these witnesses, who have been declared hostile, were resident of village Pancharda Khurd where the incident took place whereas PW-4 Likhma Ram and PW-11 Madu Ram were resident of adjoining village Pancharda Kalan, situated at a distance of 700-800 steps, as admitted by PW-4 Likhma Ram in his cross-examination. They were chance witnesses and their presence at the site should have been reasonably explained. 12. Though accused Kumbha Ram was arrested on 16.2.1996 vide Ex.P-25, he gave a voluntary disclosure statement Ex.P-27 on 17.2.1996 and Article 5- Kassi, was allegedly recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-16 on 18.2.1996 yet this recovery looses all significance because even according to PW-16 Dr. Hari Prakash, none of the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. All the injuries were either lacerated or contused wound. According to Ex.P-29, FSL report, Kassi was found stained with human blood, however, in the face of medical report, it can not connect the accused Kumbha Ram to the offence. 13. Hari Prakash, none of the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. All the injuries were either lacerated or contused wound. According to Ex.P-29, FSL report, Kassi was found stained with human blood, however, in the face of medical report, it can not connect the accused Kumbha Ram to the offence. 13. From Arjun accused appellant also, on the basis of disclosure statement Ex.P-28, Lathi-Article 6 was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-17, which upon medical examination was found having human blood. That circumstances, in the absence of proof of involvement of the accused in the crime, looses significance. 14. The trial court seems to have approached the matter in too pedartic manner and has not assessed, analysed, scanned and scrutinised the evidence, oral and documentary, in correct perspective and upon surmises and conjectures, reached to manifestly erroneous conclusion. The impugned judgment being perverse and without proper assessment and appreciation, stands rejected. 15. In view of aforesaid, appeal is accepted and conviction of the accused appellants by the trial court is set aside. The accused persons are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******