BHANWAR SINGH, J. As both these appeals pertain to one and the same occurrence and arise out of a common judgment, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. All the three appellants have filed their respective appeals against the judgment and order dated 1-5- 1980, passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1979, State v. Abbul Hasan and two others. By virtue of the said judgment, the three accused appellants, namely, Abbul Hasan, Ahat Ram and Nasim were convicted for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were alleged to have eliminated one Om Prakash, son of Mangal Das, resident of village Khampur, P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar. The accused appellants also belong to the same village. 3. The prosecution story, as was disclosed at the trial, may be narrated in the following terms:- Sri Atar Singh, son of Sri Ramdiya Singh, resident of village Khampur submitted a written report to the Station Officer of P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar at 7. 15 p. m. on December 24, 1978 with recitals therein to the effect that on 24-12-1978 at about 4. 00 p. m. , he was going to look after his agricultural fields situated on Chhapaar Kutcha road. He reached close to the sugarcane field of his co-villageman Sharif, where the sugarcane crop was being harvested and many including the deceased Om Prakash were busy in peeling off the sugarcane sticks. Om Prakash was doing the job on daily wages. He was engaged by Sharifs sons Abbul Hasan and Ahat Ram. Om Prakash demanded his wages from the two brothers, namely, Abbul Hasan and Ahat Ram at the rate of Rs. 6/- per day but the latter were not willing to make payment at the said rate and this resulted into an altercation. Abbul Hasan felt annoyed of excessive demand submitted by Om Prakash and when the latter dared further to insist on his claim, he was assaulted by Abbul Hasan, who was armed with a Balkati. Nasim inflicted pithi Daranti (a sickle without teeth) blows to Om Prakash. The third accused Ahat Ram was assaulting him with kicks. Abbul Hasan felt annoyed of excessive demand submitted by Om Prakash and when the latter dared further to insist on his claim, he was assaulted by Abbul Hasan, who was armed with a Balkati. Nasim inflicted pithi Daranti (a sickle without teeth) blows to Om Prakash. The third accused Ahat Ram was assaulting him with kicks. The informant Atar Singh and others, who were attracted to the site of occurrence, on having heard the hue and cry raised by Om Prakash, rushed for his rescue and while coming closer to the place of occurrence, they challenged the assailants and also questioned the propriety of their murderous assault. Seeing the witnesses coming towards them, all the assailants took to their heels and managed their escape good. Atar Singh and others chased Ahat Ram and apprehended him at a short distance. Ahat Ram was brought to the site of occurrence where Om Prakash was lying in pool of blood and crying in pain. Atar Singh immediately informed Om Prakashs uncle Kishan Lal, who arranged for a bogie and took in it the injured Om Prakash to the district hospital at Muzaffarnagar. Om Prakash, however, succumbed to the injuries on his arrival at hospital. 4. On the basis of the written report of Atar Singh, chik F. I. R. was drawn at P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar and its entry was made in the G. D. The Station Officer S. I. Virendra Singh nominated himself as the Investigating Officer and after examining the informant, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence. While leaving the police station, he instructed S. J. Jagram Singh to go to the hospital and prepare the inquest report. He inspected the site of occurrence on the same evening and next morning i. e. on 25-12-1978 searched for the accused. He recovered a Balkati, Material Ext. 1 from the Ghar (an accommodation used in villages for tathering cattle and living of malefolk) of accused Abbul Hasan and Ahat Ram and prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka 12. He then recorded the statement of Jagdish, Inder and Atar Singh and prepared site-plan Ext. Ka 13. He collected ordinary and blood-soaked earth from the site where the occurrence had taken place and prepared memo Ext. Ka 14. Also, he had collected a sickle from the place of occurrence and prepared its memo Ext. Ka 17. Ka 12. He then recorded the statement of Jagdish, Inder and Atar Singh and prepared site-plan Ext. Ka 13. He collected ordinary and blood-soaked earth from the site where the occurrence had taken place and prepared memo Ext. Ka 14. Also, he had collected a sickle from the place of occurrence and prepared its memo Ext. Ka 17. The Investigating Officer was transferred from Nai Mandi police station on January 1, 1979, in consequence whereof the investigation of this case was entrusted to S. I. Hariraj Singh Tyagi,who completed the remaining formalities of the investigation and submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka 18. 5. At the trial, all the three accused pleaded not guilty and denied all the incriminating allegations levelled against them. 6. The prosecution, in support of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC framed against the accused, examined as many as eight witnesses. P. W. 1 Dr. S. C. Tripathi conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Om Prakash and prepared autopsy report Ext. Ka 1. He testified before the Court that seven injuries were found on the corpse. Out of these seven injuries, three were incised wounds, three abrasions and a punctured wound. According to the opinion of the doctor, all the incised wounds and the punctured wound could be caused by a Balkati or a Pitthi sickle. 7. P. W. 2 Atar Singh is the informant of this case. He submitted written report Ext. Ka 2 at P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar and handed over Ahat Ram accused to the police. He was an eye-witness of the occurrence and as asserted by him, he saw to accused, namely Abbul Hasan and Nasim inflicting Balkati and sickle blows to Om Prakash, who succumbed to the fatal injuries suffered by him soon after he was admitted in the district hospital. Ahat Ram was seen by him kicking the victim. 8. P. W. 3 Satyapal constable carried the corpse of Om Prakash from hospital to mortuary and identified the dead body at the time of its post-mortem in the presence of the doctor, who conducted autopsy. 9. P. W. 4 Inder Singh has given an ocular account of the occurrence. Ahat Ram was seen by him kicking the victim. 8. P. W. 3 Satyapal constable carried the corpse of Om Prakash from hospital to mortuary and identified the dead body at the time of its post-mortem in the presence of the doctor, who conducted autopsy. 9. P. W. 4 Inder Singh has given an ocular account of the occurrence. He was scrapping grass in the close vicinity of the site of occurrence and when he heard the alarm raised by Om Prakash, he came to his rescue and challenged the accused appellants, who then managed to make their escape good. He with the help of other witnesses succeeded in apprehending Ahat Ram. 10. P. W. 5 also deposed in terms of the prosecution story as recited in the F. I. R. He saw the three accused appellants assaulting the victim of occurrence. He alongwith others chased the assailants and arrested Ahat Ram. 11. P. W. 6 Head Constable Dharamvir Singh was the scribe of the chik report Ext. Ka 3 and G. D. report Ext. Ka 4. 12. P. W. 7 Jagram Singh prepared the inquest report of the deceased Ex. Ka 6 and got the dead body sent for post-mortem. 13. P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector Virendra Singh was the Investigating Officer. He prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected ordinary and blood-stained earth from the site of occurrence. After his transfer, S. I. Hariraj Singh Tyagi was appointed the Investigating Officer. Charge-sheet submitted by the latter was proved by Dharamvir Singh. 14. In defence, the accused examined only one witness, namely, Sukhvir Singh, as D. W. I. Sukhvir Singh was the Lekhpal of Khampur village at the relevant time of occurrence. He was examined with a view to rebut the statement of P. W. 2 Atar Singh, who testified before the Court that at the time of occurrence he was going to have a look at his agricultural plot No. 2145. According to the testimony of Lekhpal Sukhvir Singh, the aforesaid plot was not recorded in the name of Atar Singh. 15. On having scrutinised the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence version, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused and accordingly, a finding of conviction was recorded. According to the testimony of Lekhpal Sukhvir Singh, the aforesaid plot was not recorded in the name of Atar Singh. 15. On having scrutinised the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence version, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused and accordingly, a finding of conviction was recorded. All the appellants were held guilty under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life as recited in the early part of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved of the verdict of conviction and sentence, the accused filed these two appeals reiterating their defence version that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and village partybandi. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. It has to be seen and adjudged as to whether the findings and the verdict of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are sustainable or not? 17. The first point which was pressed into service on behalf of the appellants is that according to the prosecution case, Ahat Ram, one of the three assailants was apprehended by Atar Singh, P. W. 1 and other witnesses immediately after the occurrence but in view of the serious inconsistencies which crept into the prosecution evidence, such a version appears to be devoid of merit. A perusal of the evidence of Head Constable Dharamvir Singh, P. W. 6 who had drawn chik report Ex. Ka 3 on the basis of written report Ex. Ka 2 testified that he had registered a case at General Diary Report No. 36 at 07. 30 p. m. on 24-12-1978 and specifically recited in the said Report (Ex. Ka 4) that Ahat Ram was brought in custody by the informant and other witnesses and was handed over to him. As he was one of the three assailants, he was taken into police custody and lodged in the lock-up. In this context, it is significant to note that the fact of Ahat Ram being brought to police station is not mentioned in the First Information Report, though he was said to have been secured by the informant and others after a brief chase soon after the occurrence. Obviously, Atar Singh was accountable for the custody of Ahat Ram. In this context, it is significant to note that the fact of Ahat Ram being brought to police station is not mentioned in the First Information Report, though he was said to have been secured by the informant and others after a brief chase soon after the occurrence. Obviously, Atar Singh was accountable for the custody of Ahat Ram. When he appeared as P. W. 2 in the witness box, he was asked as to how Ahat Ram was dealt with after his arrest. In para 9 of his evidence, he asserted that Ahat Ram was left behind in the village when he and others had brought Om Prakash to Muzaffarnagar Hospital. He explained further that Ahat Ram was placed in the supurdagi of 2-4 village persons. However, he could not disclose the name of such custodians. He added further that when the police, accompanied by him, arrived in the village on the same evening, the custody of Ahat Ram was transferred to police. According to him, 5-6 police personnel reached in the village at about 8. 15 p. m. and took Ahat Ram in their custody. On being questioned, he failed to disclose the place where Ahat Ram had been locked-up from the time of arrest until he was handed over to police. After about one hours stay, the police left the village with Ahat Ram in their custody. In this way, the testimony of P. W. 2 Atar Singh falsifies the recitals of the General Diary and the evidence of Head Constable Dharamvir Singh who had prepared the G. D. report, Ex. Ka 4. The evidence of P. W. 4 Inder Singh and P. W. 5 Jagdish are also in collusion with the of Atar Singh. Inder Singh stated that Ahat Ram was tied with a Chadar (cotton sheet) and he was brought to Chhapaar in the same bogie in which Om Prakash was carried away and from Chhapaar, he was taken to Muzaffarnagar Hospital and then lodged in the lock- up of the police station. 18. It is note worthy that this entire version of Inder Singh is missing from his statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr. 18. It is note worthy that this entire version of Inder Singh is missing from his statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. P. W. 5 Jagdish also made a similar statement of the accused Ahat Ram being brought along with Om prakash first to Chhapaar, then to Muzaffarnagar Hospital and thereafter he was handed over to the police at the police station. This was an important fact but he failed to disclose it to the investigating officer. This omission amounts to a serious contradiction. P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector Virendra Singh, the Investigating Officer asserted before the trial Court that Inder Singh had not disclosed to him that he along with others chased Ahat Ram, secured him and brought him at the site of occurrence where Om Prakash was crying in pain nor the said witness stated that Jagdish kept sitting by the side of Om Prakash with Ahat Ram in his captivity. The said witness had also not disclosed to the Investigating Officer that Ahat Ram was brought to Chhapaar, Muzaffarnagar Hospital and eventually to police station. Further, the investigating Officer had confirmed that Jagdish and Inder Singh also did not communicate to him that Ahat Ram was arrested by them soon after the occurrence and brought to police station. Although, the Investigating Officer denied that Ahat Ram was arrested by him on his having arrived at the village, yet his avernment in view of the serious inconsistencies creeping in the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses, the case of the prosecution about Ahat Ram being secured at the place close to the occurrence place soon after the incident and then brought to police station via Chhapaar and Muzaffarnagar Hospital is totally unworthy of credit. 19. Otherwise also, the theory of Ahat Ram being caught by the eye-witnesses does not seem to be probable as in the circumstances prevailing in the village, the eye-witnesses could not have mustered courage to arrest Ahat Ram when all the three assailants were allegedly armed with the weapons of cutting, namely Balkati and sickles. All the eye-witnesses had conceded that they belong to the labour class while the assailants have been categorised by them as mighty and influential persons in the area. All the eye-witnesses had conceded that they belong to the labour class while the assailants have been categorised by them as mighty and influential persons in the area. They belong to big jamindar family and as stated by P. W. 4 Inder Singh, the accused are moneyed persons who bullied everyone down and also they believed in the occupation of assaulting and killing (Para-8) so that one of the accused Abbul Hasan even assaulted once the police personnel. A natural question would arise when the accused particularly Abbul Hasan had acquired the notoriety of that height, whether he and Nasim would have permitted Atar Singh and others to arrest the accused Ahat Ram ? Abbul Hasan had Balkati with him while Nasim was armed with a sickle and even Ahat Ram, as stated by Inder Singh in para 15 of his evidence, has also sickle in his hand. The three eye- witnesses were without any arm. In such circumstances, the assailants would have been in a belligerent mood and certainly they would have resisted the arrest of Ahat Ram even by resorting to violence. So, the prosecution case about the arrest of Ahat Ram appears to be improbable. 20. The prosecution case is not even free from doubt about Ahat Rams participation in the murderous assault on the deceased. P. W. 4 Inder Singh retracted from his earlier statement that Ahat Ram was also peeling off the sugarcane sticks with Pithi Darati. In paras 18 and 19, he asserted that Ahat Ram was empty handed neither he had any sickle with him nor he started running away having any sickle in his hand. This contradictory statement of Inder Singh creates a long shadow of doubt about the presence of Ahat Ram at the site of occurrence. This doubt is further fortified from the manner in which he is alleged to have indulged in violence. P. W. 5 Jagdish stated in para 6 of his evidence that Ahat Ram had caught hold of Om Prakash and at the same time, he was kicking him. He added further that Ahat Ram had taken both the feet of Om Prakash in his grip and when Om Prakash fell on the ground, Ahat Ram sat on his feet and then kicked him. Inder Singh had not corroborated Ahat Rams disclosure in this manner. He added further that Ahat Ram had taken both the feet of Om Prakash in his grip and when Om Prakash fell on the ground, Ahat Ram sat on his feet and then kicked him. Inder Singh had not corroborated Ahat Rams disclosure in this manner. Although, he testified that Ahat Ram gave a few kicks to Om Prakash, he had not stated anything about Ahat Ram having caught Om Prakash by his feet or that he kept sitting on his feet while the other accused gave him Bankati and sickle blows. P. W. 2 Atar Singh conceded that he had not recited in his report anything about Ahat Ram having kicked the deceased. It was an important feature of the prosecution story. Its omission clearly rules out Ahat Rams involvement in the murderous assault. 21. The above conclusion further gets corroborated from another inconsistent version brought forth by the prosecution witnesses. P. W. 4 Inder Singh asserted in para 15 of his statement that the blood oozing out of the wounds of Om Prakash had caused stains on the trousers of Ahat Ram. The blood stained- trousers of Ahat Ram would have been a very significant piece of evidence but the police had not taken the said trousers in their custody nor any memo was prepared in respect thereof, although he was said to have been arrested soon after the occurrence and handed over to the police custody at the time of the First Information Report being lodged. 22. P. W. 5 Jagdish rejected the averment of Inder Singh by stating in Para 7 of his testimony that Ahat Ram had no blood stains either on his person or on trousers. 23. P. W. 2 Atar Singh has totally omitted this important feature. Had there been some substance in what was deposed by P. W. 4, it would have certainly attracted attention of everyone who might have come across Ahat Ram wearing blood-stained trousers including the police and certainly the Head Constable who had drawn the First Information Report and registered the case by making entry in the General Diary would have recorded this fact in the relevant General Diary. From these inconsistencies, it can be well derived that P. W. 4 Inder Singh manufactured a totally false version about Ahat Rams involvement in the alleged occurrence. From these inconsistencies, it can be well derived that P. W. 4 Inder Singh manufactured a totally false version about Ahat Rams involvement in the alleged occurrence. Accordingly, we may arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution had falsely implicated Ahat Ram and developed a baseless story of his being apprehended soon after the occurrence. 24. As regards the involvement of the remaining two witnesses, namely Abbul Hasan and Nasim also, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be free from suspicion. Whereas, P. W. 2 Atar Singh categorically stated that Abbul Hasan had Balkati and Nasim, Pithi Darati (sickle without teeth) in their hands and caused injuries to Om Prakash with their respective weapons, Inder Singh also stated that Nasim had inflicted sickle blows. However, he did not disclose to the investigating officer that Nasim was having a Pithi Darati in his hand and inflicted its blows to Om Prakash. He could not explain as to why he had omitted this fact from being mentioned. Though it can be said to be not a major contradiction but coupled with other inconsistencies appearing in his testimony and that of the other witnesses, such infirmities cannot be brushed aside merely because of their being minor omissions. Inder Singh testified that when he and other witnesses arrived at the site of occurrence, Om Prakash was in the standing pose and he was shouting for help. He specifically denied that he had not seen the victim of occurrence lying on the ground and crying for help. However, he did not make a specific statement to the investigating officer that he saw the deceased Om Prakash being assaulted in the standing posture. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the investigating officer and asked whether he disclosed to him that Om Prakash was seen by him lying on the ground and crying for help. The investigating officer confirmed this disclosure to him and the latter also submitted the extract (Ext. Kha-1) of the said contradictory statement. Similarly, P. W. 5 Jagdish conveyed to the investigating officer that he saw Om Prakash lying on the ground and shouting for help and this was confirmed by the investigating officer by submitting extract of his statement (Ext. Kha-2 ). However, in the witness-box, Jagdish gave a different version. Kha-1) of the said contradictory statement. Similarly, P. W. 5 Jagdish conveyed to the investigating officer that he saw Om Prakash lying on the ground and shouting for help and this was confirmed by the investigating officer by submitting extract of his statement (Ext. Kha-2 ). However, in the witness-box, Jagdish gave a different version. In para 12 of his statement, he stated to have disclosed to the Sub- Inspector that Om Prakash was in the standing pose when he was being assaulted. He could not give out any explanation as to why his statement in this manner was not recorded by the investigating officer. He also failed to state before the investigating officer that the accused Nasim was armed with a Pithi Darati. His statement was contradicted by P. W. 8 Virendra Singh, Station Officer. Virendra Singh, however, confirmed that according to the communication of Jagdish, Nasim had a sickle but not Pithi Sickle. Again, it may be observed that there can be a minor inconsistencies when a witness is talking about a sickle and a Pithi Sickle but if a witness comes out with minor variation on every important feature of the prosecution story, his evidence in totality has to be disbelieved. The discussions that will follow hereinafter will reveal that all these prosecution of ocular account were merely chance witness. They failed to inspire a confidence in the prosecution story of their being eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 25. It is relevant to note that P. W. 4 Inder Singh and P. W. 5 Jagdish both are cousin brothers. They had no agricultural field in the vicinity of the occurrence place. Both of them testified before the trial Court that they had gone to jungle to scrap green grass for their animals. It was purely a chance that they started scraping green in south of the sugarcane field of Abbul Hasan and Ahat Ram and the investigating officer who inspected the site of occurrence late in the evening on the date of occurrence and also the following morning did not show the place, from where the two cousins were collecting the green grass. The investigating officer categorically disclosed that the two witnesses did no show to him the place where they were removing the grass nor such place had been depicted in the site plan. 26. The investigating officer categorically disclosed that the two witnesses did no show to him the place where they were removing the grass nor such place had been depicted in the site plan. 26. It appears the story of these witnesses scraping grass in the vicinity had not been woven by the time the site plan was sketched. It is further significant to note Inder Singh stated in para 15 of his evidence that when he and his cousin Jagdish heard the shrieks of Om Prakash, both of them rushed towards the scene and at that time of rushing and running, they were behind Atar Singh. He clarified further that Atar Singh was barely 2-3 paces ahead of them. In this context a reference has to be made to the testimony of P. W. 2 Atar Singh. A perusal of his statement would reveal that he was going from his village towards jungle with a view to have a look at his agricultural Plot No. 2145. First of all, it may be mentioned that the fact of his being allottee of agricultural Plot No. 2145 is belied by the testimony of village Lekhpal Sukhvir Singh who was examined as D. W. I. He stated with reference to the Khatauni and Khasara of the village that one Gainda was recorded as owner in possession of Plot No. 2145. In the relevant year of 1387 Fasli, i. e. the year of occurrence also, the name of Gainda was recited in the revenue records to be in possession of the said plot. This is not Atar Singhs case that although the plot was allotted to his uncle Gainda, yet he had sown crop. He had also not disclosed that he and his uncle or other family members had a joint farming. Atar Singh came forward with a clear-cut version that he was the allottee of the aforesaid plot and he had sown for the first time the wheat crop about 1-1/2 months prior to the occurrence. He, however, failed to disclose as to when the said plot was allotted to him. It is thus established from the documentary and oral defence evidence that Atar Singh had no purpose of going towards jungle in north of the place of occurrence. He, however, failed to disclose as to when the said plot was allotted to him. It is thus established from the documentary and oral defence evidence that Atar Singh had no purpose of going towards jungle in north of the place of occurrence. However, coming to the prosecution version of the witnesses being attracted towards the place of occurrence on hearing the crys of the victim, it may be observed that Atar Singh came from northern side of the sugarcane field where the occurrence had taken place. From a bare look at the site-plan (Ext. Ka-13), it is evident that Atar Singh was going on the road leading from Khampur to Chhapaar and its location is in the north of Abbul Hasans field of sugarcane. Atar Singh was coming from Khampur and going towards Chhapaar, as stated by him. The investigating officer has by showing with arrows has indicated the track of Atar Singh from north towards south. Contrary to this, the direction from which the other two witnesses Jagdish and Inder Singh came has been depicted from south towards north. In simple words, whereas Atar Singh came from northern side, the other two witnesses Jagdish and Inder Singh came from he southern side. Obviously, Jagdish and Inder Singh can, by no stretch of reasoning, be expected to have followed each other. The averment of Inder Singh that along with Jagdish was behind Atar Singh when they on trip (sic) having heard Om Prakashs Shrieks rushed to the site of occurrence is totally belied in view of what has been narrated above and in this way, the evidence of all the three witnesses can be termed to be nothing but concocted. 27. The evidence of Atar Singh can be thrown out of consideration from another angle also. A perusal of the inquest report (Ext. Ka-1) would reveal that he was present at the time of the inquest report being prepared. He was the eye-witness and informant of the occurrence but in spite of this fact, it was not clearly mentioned as to how the death of Om Prakash had taken place. Simply, it is recited that Om Prakash succumbed to the injuries caused to him by some sharp edged weapon. Neither the place of occurrence was mentioned in it nor the names of the accused. Simply, it is recited that Om Prakash succumbed to the injuries caused to him by some sharp edged weapon. Neither the place of occurrence was mentioned in it nor the names of the accused. Although, it is not always necessary to mention in an inquest report all these details, yet when an eye-witness and particularly the one who had lodged the First Information Report about the ocular account is a witness of the inquest report, it is expected of such a witness to give out, no doubt, in brief as to how the victim had been killed. Neither the details of the assailants nor the weapons used were referred to in the inquest report and certainly it points to a conclusion that the informant Atar Singh is a got up witness and it also leads to an inference that the First Information Report was not in existence until the inquest report was prepared on 25-12- 1978, i. e. the day after the occurrence. 28. It is also astonishing to note that in spite of there being a long drawn enmity between the accused and the deceased and his family members how Om Prakash opted to serve as a labourer in the employment of Abbul Hasan. Inder Singh conceded in para 7 of his evidence that some 3-4 years before his statement was recorded, Mangal Das the father of Om Prakash was indicted in a case of dacoity and on charge being established against him, he was convicted and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. Inder Singh was suggested that the real uncle, namely Afzal, of the accused Ahat Ram and Abbul Hasan was a witness in the said dacoity case against Mangal Das. He expressed his ignorance on this point but for the reason of his being a close relation of Mangal Das, his ignorance can be termed to be evasive. In a close knit family, he should have been definitely in know of the fact that Afzal was a witness against his uncle Mangal Das. How then it could be expected that Om Prakash would have served as labourer in the family of Afzal. Inder Singh has also stated that Om Prakash and Abbul Hasan had quarrelled with each other some 2- 3 days prior to the occurrence. How then it could be expected that Om Prakash would have served as labourer in the family of Afzal. Inder Singh has also stated that Om Prakash and Abbul Hasan had quarrelled with each other some 2- 3 days prior to the occurrence. At that time also, Abbul Hasan was pressuring and terrorising Om Prakash to come and serve him but the latter refused to oblige on the ground of non-payment of his wages in arrears. Not only this but Om Prakash clearly refused to do any job for Abbul Hasan unless his wages were paid. After this exchange of hot words between the two, Om Prakash did not join Abbul Hasans employment for 2-3 days. When an altercation had taken place between the two 2-3 days before the date of occurrence, how Om Prakash could have agreed to join Abbul Hasan for peeling off the latters sugarcane sticks. It thus appears improbable that Om Prakash was in the employment of Abbul Hasan. 29. It is established from the evidence of the witnesses of fact that only they are related to each other but they live in the same compound. All the three witnesses, namely Atar Singh, Inder Singh and Jagdish are cousins. They are inimical to the accused persons. Inder Singh admitted that his father Ram Swaroop filed a civil suit against Ahat Rams uncle Mohammed Hanif. When the fact regarding litigation between the two was suggested, Inder Singh could not muster courage to deny it. Inder Singh also could not deny the defence suggestion that his father Ram Swaroop had appeared as a witness against Ahat Rams uncle Sabir Hasan in the sessions case relating to the murder of Murtaza. This witness testified that Sabir was in jail for 27 days but eventually, he was acquitted. Further, Gainda, who is the uncle of all the three witnesses, contested Pradhani election against the accused Abbul Hasan and Ahat Rams uncle Afzal. In that Pradhani election, Afzal had won while Gainda lost. This contest in election might have certainly led to some bitterness between the two families. In this way, it was clearly established that there was a long drawn enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused persons. On account of this animosity, these eye-witnesses have given a prejudicial account of unbelievable and improbable evidence as regards occurrence. This contest in election might have certainly led to some bitterness between the two families. In this way, it was clearly established that there was a long drawn enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused persons. On account of this animosity, these eye-witnesses have given a prejudicial account of unbelievable and improbable evidence as regards occurrence. Accordingly, their evidence being full of infirmities, inconsistencies and replete with the disturbing features all around is rejected. 30. The medical evidence too is not in consonance with the ocular account of the witnesses. As recited in the first Information Report and stated by the eye-witnesses, Abbul Hasan had a Balkati and Nasim had a sickle with him. Both these assailants attacked Om Prakash with these weapons. There was no weapon with the accused which might have caused a punctured wound. A perusal of the post-mortem report, Ext. Ka-1, appears to indicate that Injury No. 3 was a punctured wound. This injury cannot be connected with the blow of either a Balkati or a sickle. Dr. C. S. Tripathi, P. W. 1 clearly stated that none of the injuries of the deceased had any curvature. Injuries 1, 2 and 7 were all transverse and such injuries could not be sustained if a weapon with which the victim was assaulted will have a curve. However, he revised his statement by saying that Injury No. 2 was not transverse and, therefore, could be caused with a weapon having a small curve. It is an open fact that a Sickle whether it has teeth or does not have any teeth is always curve in shape and if a sickle is used as weapon, it will certainly cause an injury having curvature. The curvature will be corresponding to the weapon. During his cross- examination, Dr. testified in para 9 that Injury No. 2 could not be caused with a weapon having a curve. According to the ocular account of the witnesses, Nasim alone inflicted sickle blows to the deceased. It is thus clear that the evidence of Dr. Tripathi would clearly rule out the case of a sickle as a weapon. It is not the prosecution case that Abbul Hasan alone caused all the injuries. 31. According to the ocular account of the witnesses, Nasim alone inflicted sickle blows to the deceased. It is thus clear that the evidence of Dr. Tripathi would clearly rule out the case of a sickle as a weapon. It is not the prosecution case that Abbul Hasan alone caused all the injuries. 31. Keeping all in view what has been discussed above, we are of the decisive opinion that the prosecution case could not be substantiated by the eye-witnesses whose version was full of inconsistencies and improbabilities besides being biased and prejudiced. The prosecution failed to establish its theory of the three accused appellants having eliminated Om Prakash. The crux is that both the appeals deserve to be allowed and the accused are entitled to a verdict of acquittal. 32. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The verdict of conviction and sentence in the appeals passed against the three appellants is set aside. The accused appellants are held not guilty and acquitted of the charge levelled against them under Section 302/34 I. P. C. They are on bail to which they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeals allowed. .