Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE three appellants namely Dev Narain, Rameshwar and Rugga were found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge. Dausa vide judgment dated June 14, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 41/1994. They were convicted and sentenced as under:1]. Dev Narain u/s. 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20001 in default to further suffer one year R. I. to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/-in default to further suffer two months RI. u/s. 324 IPC to suffer six months RI and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer one month RI. to suffer 2 years RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further u/s. 323 IPC suffer four months RI. u/s. 452 IPC2]. Rameshwar u/s. 324 IPC to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/-in default to further suffer two months RI. to suffer six months RI and fine of Rs. 200/-u/s. 323 IPC in default to further suffer one month RI. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) AS per the prosecution version, a written report (Ex. P. 18) was lodged by the informant Ram Swaroop (PW. 11), at Police Station Bandikui on March 22, 1994 at 5. 30 a. m. wherein it was alleged that on the previous night at about 8 p. m. Dev Narain came hurling abuses armed with a gun and gave a threatening to shoot but went back to come again with a Pharsi accompanied by Rameshwar, Rugga and two unidentified persons who were armed with Pharsi, Lathi and axe. All of them assaulted and caused injuries to the informant, Kamli, Ram Kumar, Heera, Ganga and Rukko. In the process of making assault they entered inside the house and Dev Narain inflicted Pharsi blow on the neck of Sunita who died on the spot. The incident occurred because of dispute pertaining to digging of a well and it was witnessed by Ladu Ram and Ram Dhan. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the aforequoted report, a case bearing FIR No. 126/94 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 302, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Dausa. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the aforequoted report, a case bearing FIR No. 126/94 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 302, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Dausa. Charges under sections 147, 148, 323, 323/149,452,324,324/149,302/149 and 302, IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses besides the documentary evidence in support of its case. Thereafter the statements, of the accused were recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. wherein they claimed innocence and stated that the members of the complainant party assaulted them. The accused examined two witnesses in their defence. Learned trial court on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the three accused as indicated herein above. This verdict of conviction has been assailed by the accused in the instant appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance closely scanned the record. 3. Rugga u/s. 323 IPC to suffer six months RI and fine of Rs. 200/ - in default to further suffer one month RI. ( 5 ) IT is borne out from the record that accused appellant Rameshwar too lodged a written report at police Station Bandikui on March 22, 1994 at 12. 15 a. m. against the members of the complainant party on the basis of which FIR No. 125/94 (Ex. D. 14) under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307, IPC was registered. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the members of the complainant party for various offences including one under section 307, IPC. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is mainly based on the eye witness account of Ram Kuwar (PW. 4), Ladu (PW. 5), Ram Dhan (PW. 7), Hira (PW. 8), Smt. Kamli (PW. 9), Sukku (PW. 10) and Ram Swaroop (PW. 11 ). In his deposition Ram Kuwar (PW. 4) who is an injured eye-witness stated that while his daughter Sunita (deceased) was sleeping in the chawk. Dev Narain inflicted Barchhi blows on her head. Dev Narain also gave Barchi blows on the forehead and waist of Ram Swaroop and Rameshwar inflicted a blow on his shoulder with Barchhi, Rugga caused injuries on the person of Hira and Sukko. 4) who is an injured eye-witness stated that while his daughter Sunita (deceased) was sleeping in the chawk. Dev Narain inflicted Barchhi blows on her head. Dev Narain also gave Barchi blows on the forehead and waist of Ram Swaroop and Rameshwar inflicted a blow on his shoulder with Barchhi, Rugga caused injuries on the person of Hira and Sukko. Improving his statement Ram Kuwar deposed that Dev Narain, gave barchhi blow on the neck of Sunita. As per his injury report (Ex. P. 3) he sustained one lacerated wound on his right shoulder, one abrasion on chest and one bruise over right forearm. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not say to police that at the time of incident Sunita was standing in the chawk. In his police statement Ex. D. 1 how it was mentioned he did not know. He admitted that police submitted charge sheet, against him, Ram Swaroop, Banne and Kamli in the court. The Barchhi left by Dev Narain at the spot, was handed over by them to the police. Ladu (PW. 5) deposed that Dev Narain inflicted Barchhi blow over the neck of Sunita as a result of which she died. Dev Naraina also caused injuries to Ram Swaroop and Ram Kuwar whereas Rameshwar gave beating to Kamli and Rugga to Hira. When he intervened he also sustained injury on the finger of his left hand. In the cross-examination he stated that it was a dark night and there, was no light in the chawk. He did not see because of darkness as to who caused injuries to whom and as to on which side the head of Sunita was while she was sleeping. After the accused fled away, a lantern was brought. He did not know as to how many blows were inflicted by Dev Narain. ( 7 ) RAM Dhan (PW. 7) stated that Dev Narain inflicted two Barchhi blows over the neck of Sunita. It was a moon lit night and at the place of incident a bulb was on. In the cross examination he deposed that he did not see injuries on the person of Dev Narain, Rameshwar and Rugga. When he reached at the house of Ram Swaroop, Sunita was lying on the floor. When Dev Narain inflicted injury to Sunita, he was also standing nearby. In the cross examination he deposed that he did not see injuries on the person of Dev Narain, Rameshwar and Rugga. When he reached at the house of Ram Swaroop, Sunita was lying on the floor. When Dev Narain inflicted injury to Sunita, he was also standing nearby. Ladu Ram snatched Barchhis from Dev Narain and Rameshwar and handed over to village Panchayat, Hira (PW. 8), Smt. Kamli (PW. 9), Sukku (PW. 10) and Ram Swaroop (PW. 11) also narrated the same version as stated by Ram Dhan. According to them it was a moonlit night and there was a light at the place of incident. ( 8 ) BHANWAR Lal 1. 0. (PW. 13) in his deposition stated that on the basis of disclosure statements of Rameshwar, Rugga and Dev Narain, he recovered Pharsis and axe. In his cross examination he deposed that accused Rameshwar on March 22, 1994 appeared in the police station at 12. 15 a. m. and handed over to him a written report (Ex. D. 7 ). He further stated that there was no light in the chowk and he did not know whether any lantern was there or not but in the site plan he did not make any mention of lantern. He further stated that Dev Narain and his wife were referred by Hospital Bandikui to SMS Hospital Jaipur for treatment. He did not arrest Dev Narain till April 10, 1994. He filed charge sheet in a cross case and along with the charge-sheet he had annexed injury reports of Dev Narain Ex. D. 9, Smt. Bhagwati (Ex. D. 10) X-ray report of Rugga Ex. D. 11 and Xray report of Bhagwati Ex. D. 12. ( 9 ) DR. Prakash Chand Satiya (PW. 3) who conducted autopsy on the body of Sunita aged 6 years, stated that as per post mortem report (Ex. P. 7) two ante mortem incised wounds were found on her cervical vertebrae and under surface of lower jaw. The cause of death was shock by external haemorrhage and obstruction in respiration. Dr. Prakash Chand Satiya also examined the injuries of accused Rameshwar. As per his injury report Ex. D. 1 he sustained one lacerated wound on right hand and two incised wounds on left hand and right elbow. Injury report of accused Rugga is Ex. D. 2. Dev Narain as per injury report Ex. Dr. Prakash Chand Satiya also examined the injuries of accused Rameshwar. As per his injury report Ex. D. 1 he sustained one lacerated wound on right hand and two incised wounds on left hand and right elbow. Injury report of accused Rugga is Ex. D. 2. Dev Narain as per injury report Ex. D. 9 sustained multiple abrasions over face right elbow and left knee joint and there was a stitched wound over his left scapular region. Accused Rugga as per Ex. D. 11 sustained fracture of radius bone over right wrist joint, Smt. Bhagwati W/o Dev Narain as per X-ray report Ex. D. 12 sustained fractures of right parietal bone and 8th and 9th ribs. ( 10 ) FACT situation emerged from the above discussion may be summarised thus (i) The incident had taken place on March 21. 1994 at about 8 p. m. Accused Rameshwar lodged a written report at the Police Station Bandikui at 12. 15 a. m. on March 12. 1994 and FIR No. 125/94 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 302 IPC was registered against the accused. (ii) According to Ladu (PW. 5) it was a dark night and there was no light in the chowk but as per the statements of Ram Dhan (PW. 7), Hira (PW. 8), Smt. Kamli (PW. 9), Sukka (PW. 10) and Ram Swaroop (PW. 11) it was a moon lit night and there was a light at the place of incident. (iii) As per the statement of Bhanwar Lal 1. 0. (PW. 13) there was no light in the chowk and he did not know whether there was any lantern or not but he did not make any mention of lantern in the site plan. (iv) Ram Kuwar (PW. 4) the father of deceased Sunita stated that the weapon of offence used by Dev Narain was left at the place of incident and it was Ram Kuwar who gave the said weapon to police. According to Ram Dhan (PW. 7) it was Ladu Ram who snatched Barchhi from Rameshwar and Dev Narain and handed over to village Panchayat. Whereas Bhanwar Lal 1. 0. (PW. 13) stated that he recovered the weapons on the basis of disclosure statements of accused Rameshwar and Dev Narain. (v) The injuries sustained by the accused Dev Narain, Rameshwar and Rugga have not been explained by the prosecution. Whereas Bhanwar Lal 1. 0. (PW. 13) stated that he recovered the weapons on the basis of disclosure statements of accused Rameshwar and Dev Narain. (v) The injuries sustained by the accused Dev Narain, Rameshwar and Rugga have not been explained by the prosecution. (vi) Charge sheet under sections 147,148, 149, 323 and 307, IPC. was filed against the members of the complainant party in the court and the accused Dev Narain, Rameshwar, Rugga and Smt. Bhagwati W/o Dev Narain sustained grievous injuries. ( 11 ) A survey of the evidence leaves can impression that there was a free fight between the two groups, namely, the complainant party and the accused party, in which both parties sustained injuries. It is the settled law that in a free fight each accused will be liable for the individual act attributed to the particular accused. It is therefore to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was accused Dev Narain who committed house trespass and inflicted wounds on the neck of Sunita as a result of which she died and all the accused are also guilty for having committed offences under sections 324 and 323 IPC. ( 12 ) WE have already noticed the injuries found on the person of the accused Dev Narain, Rarheshwar and Rugga. Vide injury report Ex. D. 9 Dev Narain sustained multiple abrasions over face, right elbow and left knee joint, and there was a stitched wound on his left scapular region. As per injury report Ex. D. 1 accused Rameshwar received one lacerated wound on right hand and two wounds on left hand and right elbow. According to injury report Ex. D. 11 accused Rugga sustained fracture of radius bone over right wrist joint. Thus an the injuries received by the accused were on exposed parts of their bodies and we would expect the prosecution witnesses to explain how the three accused sustained the said injuries but no explanation worth the name is forthcoming. In State of Rajasthan v. Madho, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that if the prosecution witnesses shy away from the reality and do not explain the injuries cased to the accused it casts a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case since the evidence shows that these injuries were sustained in the course of the same incident. In State of Rajasthan v. Madho, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that if the prosecution witnesses shy away from the reality and do not explain the injuries cased to the accused it casts a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case since the evidence shows that these injuries were sustained in the course of the same incident. It gives the impression that the witnesses are suppressing some part of the incident. The High Court was. rightly of the opinion that having regard to the fact that they have failed to explain the injuries sustained by the two respondents in the course of the same. Transaction, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of doubt as it was hazardous to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the injured prosecution witnesses. TI ( 13 ) IT is well settled principle that every accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. But the Honble Supreme Court in Divakar Hegde v. State of Karnataka observed that the principle of extending the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be readily accepted but should be carefully applied if certain circumstances exist and warrant the application of the principle, In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that Ta reasonable doubt does not mean some light, any, insubstantial doubt that may nit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other. It does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict: it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reason. ( 14 ) LORD Denning in Miller v. Ministry of Pensions observed that Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does nutmean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not is the least possiblet the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not is the least possiblet the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. ( 15 ) IN Khem Karan v. State of U. P. , the Honble Supreme Court observed thus neither mere possibilities nor remote possibilities nor mere doubts which are not reasonable can, without danger to the administration of justice, be the foundation of the acquittal of an accused person, if there is otherwise fairly credible testimony. ( 16 ) COMING to the facts of the case on hand we find that witness Ladu (PW. 5) who is an injured eye witness, in his deposition categoric any stated that there was no light in the chowk, it was a dark night and after the accused fled away a lantern was brought. It appears that after the examination of Ladu (PW. 5) the prosecution made an attempt to repair the damage caused by the testimony of Ladu and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution thereafter, such as Ram Dhan (PW. 7), Hira (PW. 8) Smt. Kamli (PW. 9) Sukku (PW. 10) and Ram Swaroop (PW. 11) deposed that it was a moon lit night and a bulb was on in the chowk. ( 17 ) SO far as recovery of weapons of offence at the instance of accused is concerned version of Ram Kuwar (PW. 4) and Ram Dhan (PW. 7) is quite different than that of the other prosecution witnesses. According to Ram Kuwar, Dev Narain had left the weapon at the spot and it was the complainant party who handed over the said weapon to Police. Ram Dhan also stated that Ladu had snatched the weapons from the accused Dev Narain and Rameshwar and handed over to village Panchayat. On the other hand Bhanwar Lal 1. 0. (PW. 13) deposed that weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused persons. ( 18 ) IT thus appears that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence as to the source of light and the recovery of weapons. On the other hand Bhanwar Lal 1. 0. (PW. 13) deposed that weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused persons. ( 18 ) IT thus appears that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence as to the source of light and the recovery of weapons. ( 19 ) IT is true that there are as many as seven eye witnesses who are alleged to have seen the occurrence and they have given a parrot like version of the entire case regarding the assault on the deceased and the injured by the various accused persons. The statement of each witness is verbatim the same as that of others. Contradictions and omissions are the same. Narrations and sequence of events are meticulously in the same order. Although all these witnesses have with one voice and with complete unanimity implicated the three accused persons yet all the witnesses have failed to explain the severe injuries sustained by the three accused persons on exposed parts of their bodies and it casts a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case. The delay of nine and half hours in instituting the report of the incident in the facts and circumstances of the case, is also very relevant. Accused Rameshwar on the one hand lodged the report (Ex. D. 7) of the incident at 12. 15 a. m. on March 22, 1994 i. e. five hours and fifteen minutes earlier than the report (Ex. P. 18) instituted by the informant Ram Swaroop (PW. 11 ). We do not find any motive from the material on record as to why Sunita, a girl of five years of age was killed by the accused. This possibility cannot be ruled out that when both the parties were assaulting each other. Sunita came in between the assault and sustained fatal injuries and there was sufficient time Nine and half hours for the complainant party to introduce a coloured version and exaggerated account of concocted story after deliberations and consultations. In view of this it is not safe to place implicit reliance oil the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the learned trial court is not based on cogent materials and convincing reasons. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the learned trial court is not based on cogent materials and convincing reasons. The infirmities noticed by us in the prosecution case have been overlooked by the learned trial judge and the impugned finding of conviction can not b:,: sustained. ( 21 ) IN the result we allow the appeal and setaside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused appellants Dev Narain, Rameshwar and Rugga. We acquit them from all the charges levelled against them. We direct that the appellant Dev Narain be released from jail forthwith unless he is required in any other case. Accused appellants Rameshwar and Rugga are on bail, their bail bonds, therefore will stand discharged. Appeal allowed.