JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-1-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 285/1985 whereby they have been convicted sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., have come up in appeal before us. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under:--- The deceased Ramesh, his son Dashrath P.W. 1, the informant Bhaidas P.W. 2, Datta Kane P.W. 3 and the appellants are residents of village Ghorsai which is situated within the limits of taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane. The appellants are said to be relations of the deceased. There was enmity between the appellant Bhagwan and the deceased because the former had committed theft of the wood of the latter, some times in 1984. It is said that irked by this enmity the appellant Bhagwan alongwith appellants Balaram and Shantaram murdered the deceased Ramesh on 23-5-1985 at about 6 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. It is alleged that on 23-5-1985 Dashrath P.W. 1 and his father Ramesh went to the premises of Vishwa Bharathi Co. for loading hay in their cart. The said hay belonged to one Ramesh Pandurang Dongre. After loading it once and unloading the same at their house they went to load hay for the second time when at about 6 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. when they had reached near the field of one Dadu Motiram Keni near Vathedar river, Dashrath who was driving the cart heard the cries of his father Ramesh, who was behind him in terms, "Dashrath, I am dying". Consequently he stopped the cart and on looking back found that appellants, Bhagwan and Balaram were assaulting his father with iron rods and appellant Shantaram was assaulting him with stick. On seeing his father being assaulted he ran away in the cart and went home where he met his cousin brother Bhaidas P.W. 2 to whom he informed that Bhagwan, Balaram and Shantaram were assaulting his father with iron rods and stick. After assaulting Ramesh, the appellants ran away. One Datta Kane P.W. 3, between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., saw the appellant Bhagwan with a short stick and appellant Shantaram with a stick running towards their house. After assaulting Ramesh, the appellants ran away. One Datta Kane P.W. 3, between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., saw the appellant Bhagwan with a short stick and appellant Shantaram with a stick running towards their house. After receiving the said information from Dashrath P.W. 1, Bhaidas P.W. 2 along with Dashrath and some others rushed to the spot and found Ramesh lying with injuries on his head, right eye and other parts of his body. Thereafter Bhaidas P.W. 2 and others removed Ramesh to Bhiwandi hospital and Dashrath P.W. 1 went back to his house. 3. The evidence of Bhaidas P.W. 2 shows that after removing Ramesh to Bhiwandi hospital he proceeded to Bhiwandi taluka Police Station where he lodged his F.I.R., Exhibit 9. On the basis of the said F.I.R., P.H.C. Pandurang Kochrekar P.W. 4 registered an offence under section 307 I.P.C. at Bhiwandi Police Station at 9 p.m., against the appellants. Next day when Ramesh succumbed to his injuries in Civil Hospital, Thane, the offence was converted to one under section 302 I.P.C. 4. The case was investigated in the usual manner by P.S.I. Sarolkar P.W. 10, who prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence and sent the corpse for autopsy. On 24-5-1985 in the presence of public panch Suresh Bhoir he recovered blood stained shirt at the instance of appellants Bhagwan and Shantaram, from their house. We are not entering into greater details with regard to the recovery because although the shirts were sent to the chemical analyser he did not find any blood stains on them. On 3-6-1985 P.S.I., Sarolkar proceeded on leave and handed over the investigation to P.S.I. Madhav Malve, P.W. 8. During the course of investigation appellant, Shantaram disclosed to P.S.I. Malve that he could have the stick, which he had hidden recovered and appellants Bhagwan and Balaram disclosed to him that they could have the iron rods recovered. The said disclosures were recorded under panchanamas and thereafter, P.S.I. Malve, on the pointing out of the said appellants, under separate panchanamas, made recoveries of the said weapons. We are not entering into greater details with regard to these recoveries because no blood was found by the chemical analyst on them and the public panchas of recovery of iron rods, who were independent, have not been examined by the prosecution, nor any reason has been furnished by it for not examining them. 5. We are not entering into greater details with regard to these recoveries because no blood was found by the chemical analyst on them and the public panchas of recovery of iron rods, who were independent, have not been examined by the prosecution, nor any reason has been furnished by it for not examining them. 5. Going backwards the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Haraji Patankar P.W. 6 who found on it the following ante mortem injuries: 1. Incised wound 3" x 2" x bone deep in the left fronto parietal region. Bleeding was present. 2. Incised W. 3" x 2" x bone deep in the occipital region oblique; 3. Incised W. 3 ½" x 1" x bone deep in right parieto occipital region; 4. Incised wound 1" x ½" x skin deep in left parieto occipital region; 5. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep in parieto region in midline; 6. Stitched wound 3" in right frontal region; 7. Stitched wound 3" in right fronto parietal region; 8. Stitched wound 2" in right temporal region; 9. Incised wound 1" x ½" x skin deep on left leg lower knee. On internal examination Dr. Patankar found fracture of skull and fracture of right frontal and parietal bones. In the opinion of Dr. Patankar the injuries of skull were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is pertinent to mention that in his examination in chief Dr. Patankar categorically stated that the incised wounds could not be caused by the stick and iron rods shown to him. However, during cross-examination, to a Court question, he stated that they could be caused by them because contused lacerated wounds on scalp may look like incised wounds. However, on further cross-examination he stated that on a careful examination it can definitely be said whether the injuries are contused lacerated wounds or incised wounds. He went on to say that he had performed the post-mortem on the dead body and on careful examination had noted the injuries shown as incised wounds as incised wounds. Finally he stated that the incised wounds could not be caused by hard blunt objects and were not caused by stick and iron rods shown to him. 6. He went on to say that he had performed the post-mortem on the dead body and on careful examination had noted the injuries shown as incised wounds as incised wounds. Finally he stated that the incised wounds could not be caused by hard blunt objects and were not caused by stick and iron rods shown to him. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the respondents were charged for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial in all the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that Dashrath son of the deceased Ramesh who was the solitary eye-witness of the incident was examined as P.W. 1. The other witnesses examined included Bhaidas P.W. 2 to whom immediately after the incident Dashrath had disclosed the incident and Datta Kane P.W. 3 who saw the appellant Bhagwan with a short stick and appellant Shantaram with a stick running towards their house. The learned trial Judge primarily, on the ocular account furnished by Dashrath P.W. 1, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated in para 1. Hence this appeal. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. In our view the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt. 8. The main evidence on which the conviction of the appellants is founded is that of Dashrath P.W. 1, the son of the deceased Ramesh. In para 2 of this judgment we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in his examination in chief and consequently do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating all the details. In short he stated that on 23-5-1985 at about 6 to 6.15 p.m., when he on a cart and his father behind him were going for the second time to collect hay from the field of Ramesh Pandurang Dongre and had reached the field of one Motiram Dadu Keni near Vathedar river, he heard the cries of his father Ramesh in terms, "Dashrath, I am dying". Hearing them he turned and found that appellants Bhagwan and Balaram were assaulting his father with iron rods and appellant Shantaram was assaulting him with stick. Hearing them he turned and found that appellants Bhagwan and Balaram were assaulting his father with iron rods and appellant Shantaram was assaulting him with stick. On seeing his father Ramesh being assaulted he rushed to the house of his cousin Bhaidas P.W. 2 and informed him about the incident. Bhaidas P.W. 2 along with him and others came to the spot where Ramesh was being assaulted by the appellants, and found him lying there in an unconscious condition. Thereafter he went home and his father was taken by Bhaidas and others to Bhagwati Hospital and after admitting him there Bhaidas went and lodged the F.I.R. 9. We have examined the evidence of Dashrath P.W. 1 and we are constrained to observe that it would not be safe to place reliance on it. It should be borne in mind that being the son of the deceased Ramesh, his evidence will have to be evaluated with caution. And we dare say that when we do this we find it lacking in credibility. He candidly stated that his father was only assaulted with iron rod and sticks but the medical evidence, as we have seen earlier, shows a large number of incised wounds on the head of the deceased. In our view, the dimensions and the depth of the said incised wound show that they were caused by sharp cutting weapons and not by iron rods and sticks. In our view, it would be safe to accept the statement of Dr. Patankar, the autopsy surgeon, in examination in chief, in terms that the incised wounds could not be caused by iron rods and sticks and his statement in cross-examination that he had carefully performed the autopsy report and noted the incised wounds on the head of the deceased as incised wounds and that after carefully examining the incised wounds he was of the view that they could not be caused by a hard and blunt substance. It is true that to a Court question Dr. Patankar stated that contused lacerated wounds on scalp may look like incised wounds and the incised wounds found on the head of the deceased could be caused by iron rods and sticks. But on looking to the nature of the incised injuries we are inclined to accept the statement made by him in his examination-in-chief and that made in the cross-examination. But on looking to the nature of the incised injuries we are inclined to accept the statement made by him in his examination-in-chief and that made in the cross-examination. We have seen that the said statements are candidly to the effect that they could not be caused by iron rods and sticks. Apart from this there are other reasons as to why in our view, the evidence of Dashrath P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence. During the course of his cross-examination, in para 11, he stated that it takes about 45 minutes to reach home from the field of Ramesh Dongre by a bullock cart and they left for the said field at about 5.40 to 5.45 p.m. but in his statement under section 161 Cri.P.C., with which he was confronted he stated that they left for the said field at about 3.30 to 3.45 p.m. In view of the said statement, bearing in mind that it would have taken about 45 minutes to reach near the place of the incident, to us, it appears that the possibility of the incident taking place at about 4.30 p.m. cannot be ruled out and in view thereof he could not have seen the incident which according to him took place between 6 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. Apart from it we find that there has been delay in his interrogation under section 161 Cri.P.C. In his cross-examination he stated that his statement was recorded the next day by the police and the whole night he was at his house. It is pertinent to mention that Bhaidas P.W. 2, his cousin in his cross-examination (para 5) has stated that the Police had come to the village at about 11 to 11.30 p.m. the same night. In our view, had he seen the incident he would have disclosed to the police that very night. In our judgment, the delay in his interrogation was perhaps on account of the fact that he had not seen the incident. Another reason which throws a cloud of doubt on his claim of having seen the incident is that he stated that the appellants were assaulting the deceased on his back but the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased, which we have extracted in its entirety, belies this. Another reason which throws a cloud of doubt on his claim of having seen the incident is that he stated that the appellants were assaulting the deceased on his back but the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased, which we have extracted in its entirety, belies this. Finally, as apparent from his cross-examination, he did not disclose the incident to anyone till he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cri.P.C. This makes us doubt whether he saw the incident. 10. For the said reasons in our view, it would not be safe to accept the testimony of Dashrath. We dare say that once it is rejected on the residual evidence the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 11. Once we do not accept the testimony of Dashrath P.W. 1, it follows as a logical imperative that the evidence of his cousin Bhaidas P.W. 2 who stated that immediately after the incident he had disclosed the incident to him cannot be accepted. 12. We now take up the main plank of the residual evidence, namely, the statement of Datta Kane P.W. 3 who on the date of the incident between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., saw the appellant Bhagwan with a short stick and appellant Shantaram with a stick running towards their house. This evidence, which would be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act, does not inspire any confidence because during the course of his cross-examination, in para 4, Datta Kane admitted that his statement under section 161 Cri.P.C. was recorded on 3rd June 1985, that is, 11 days after the incident and till then he had not disclosed the incident to anyone. In our view, this inordinate-unexplained delay, in the recording of his statement and his unnatural conduct of not disclosing the same till then, renders it unsafe to accept his evidence. 13. We may also say that the evidence adduced by the prosecution under section 27 of the Evidence Act viz., recoveries would not turn the tables in its favour, because neither on the stick nor on the iron rods the chemical analyst found stains of blood. 14. 13. We may also say that the evidence adduced by the prosecution under section 27 of the Evidence Act viz., recoveries would not turn the tables in its favour, because neither on the stick nor on the iron rods the chemical analyst found stains of blood. 14. Coming to the recovery of shirts from the houses of appellant Bhagwan and Shantaram we may mention that the said shirts tally with the description of the shirts, which according to Dashrath P.W. 1, the said appellants were putting on, at the time of the incident but the evidence of public panch Suresh Bhoir P.W. 5 shows that there was blood on them and in our view, since the Chemical Analyser did not find any blood stains on them the said recovery would also be of no avail to the prosecution. 15. For the reasons we allow this appeal, acquit the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 r.w. 34 I.P.C., set aside their sentence of imprisonment for life imposed thereunder and direct that their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. -----