Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the State, challenging judgment, dated 13-3-87 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No. 14/86 whereby the Sessions Court has acquitted the accused persons for committing offences under Sections 148,302/149, IPC. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION story is that the accused persons on 29-11-85 at about 8. 00 in the morning illegality assembled together with an intention to cause death of deceased Karodilal @ Birbal s/o Halkeram. They attacked the deceased with guns, Farsi, Sang, Lohangi, Gandasi, Lathi and other weapons. Due to the injuries sustained, Karodilal died. It is admitted position that accused persons are closely related to each other and belongs to same family. ( 3. ) COMPLAINANT Ramcharan (P. W. 8) has lodged a report (Ex. P-15) on 29-11-85 at 11. 30 A. M. that Karodilal was taking his cows with him. When he reached near the house of accused Ramcharan, Ramcharan came out from the floor mill run by him in his house and stopped him and asked why he has lodged the report against his persons. He also shouted asking other accused to come forward and attack the deceased. Accused Ramcharan gave a blow of farsi in the head of Karodilal due to which Karodi fell down. Shrikrishna gave a blow of farsa on the right hand of the deceased. Accused radheshyam gave a farsi blow on the forehead of the deceased. Accused Gopal gave a farsa blow on the leg of the deceased while other accused Girdhari, ramdayal, Chhote and Shyam gave the blows of lathi to the deceased. Accused kailash gave a blow of Gandasi to the deceased. Due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he died on the spot. This incident is witnessed by four eye-witnesses Gourishankar (P. W. 7), Ramcharan (P. W. 8), Rambabu (P. W. 9) and Ramprasad (P. W. 10 ). Ramcharan (P. W. 8) was on his agricultural farm at the time of accident. In the FIR (Ex. P-15), it is alleged that 12 years prior to the incident brothers of accused Ramcharan has caused murder of brother-in-law of complainant Ramcharan and since then there was enmity between them. The police after investigation filed a challan against the accused persons and the Sessions Court after recording the evidence acquitted the accused persons, hence this appeal. ( 4. P-15), it is alleged that 12 years prior to the incident brothers of accused Ramcharan has caused murder of brother-in-law of complainant Ramcharan and since then there was enmity between them. The police after investigation filed a challan against the accused persons and the Sessions Court after recording the evidence acquitted the accused persons, hence this appeal. ( 4. ) TRIAL Court found that the statements of eye-witnesses gourishankar (P. W. 7), Ramcharan (P. W. 8), Rambabu (P. W. 9) and ramprasad (P. W. 10) are not sufficient to convict the accused persons. Gourishankar (P. W. 7) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Thus, the prosecution story rests on the statements of other three eye-witnesses Ramcharan (P. W. 8), Rambabu (P. W. 9) and Ramprasad (P. W. 10 ). From the perusal of post-mortem report it appears that the deceased has sustained as many as 21 injuries. Cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries on the body of the deceased. Doctor has specifically given an opinion that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects and hard and sharp objects. The injuries were caused 18 to 36 hours prior to the incident. Dr. A. P. Agarwal (P. W. 1) has performed the post-mortem of the deceased. As per the statements of doctor injury Nos. 11, 13, 14 and 17 were caused by hard and sharp weapons while injury Nos. 2, 6, 8,9,10,12 and 15 to 21 were caused by hard and blunt objects. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 7,11,13,14 and 21 were of grievous in nature while other injuries were simple in nature. According to doctor injury Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. ( 5. ) NOW coming to other witnesses, as already stated Gourishankar (P. W. 7) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Complainant Ramcharan (P. W. 8) and Rambabu (P. W. 9) are maternal uncle and nephew of each other. Nanhelal, brother-in-law of Ramcharan (P. W. 8) and father of Rambabu (P. W. 9) was murdered and sessions trial was conducted against accused Ramcharan in which Ramcharan accused was acquitted. In the year 1976 accused Ramcharan has also faced a sessions trial for committing the murder of Lakshmi in which Rambabu was a prosecution witness. In that case also Ramcharan was acquitted. In the year 1976 accused Ramcharan has also faced a sessions trial for committing the murder of Lakshmi in which Rambabu was a prosecution witness. In that case also Ramcharan was acquitted. Ramprasad (P. W. 10) had also lodged a report against the accused persons for causing death of a goat. In that case also Ramcharan (P. W. 8) was a witness. Witnesses Ramcharan, rambabu and Ramprasad have admitted in their statements that they have canvassed against accused Ramcharan in an election of Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti. Thus, it clearly appears that there was previous enmity between the three witnesses Ramcharan (P. W. 8), Rambabu (P. W. 9) and Ramprasad (P. W. 10) and the accused persons. ( 6. ) MERE enmity is not sufficient to discard the statements of eyewitnesses as enmity is a double edged sword. It is quite possible that the incident must have been committed due to the enmity. Hence, the statements of the eye-witnesses can not be discarded only on the ground of enmity. Second ground on which the learned Judge has based his judgment is the spot inspection report prepared by him. Learned Judge before delivering the judgment has himself inspected the spot and prepared a report. In Para 9 of the judgment court has stated that the Judge has inspected the spot to find out whether the place of incident is visible from the spot where these witnesses have stated to be present. These witnesses have stated that they were present at their fields at the time of incident and after hearing the cry they rushed to the main road and seen the incident from 250-300 steps. Learned Judge in his inspection report has observed that after 50-100 steps from the spot from where these witnesses claims to have seen the incident there is a curve on the road. Some tamarind trees are standing on the curve and, therefore, the spot is not visible from the place where these witnesses were present. Now, the question is whether the spot inspection report of the Judge should be relied upon for acquitting the accused persons and can be made a base for their acquittal. ( 7. ) CRIMINAL Courts have powers to inspect the spot under Section 310, Cr. PC. Said section reads as under :-310. Now, the question is whether the spot inspection report of the Judge should be relied upon for acquitting the accused persons and can be made a base for their acquittal. ( 7. ) CRIMINAL Courts have powers to inspect the spot under Section 310, Cr. PC. Said section reads as under :-310. Local Inspection.- (1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place in which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. (2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case and if the prosecutor, a complainant or accused or any other party to the case, so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost. This section is examined by the Apex Court in the case of The State of uttar Pradesh Vs. Het Ram and others, AIR 1976 SC 2124 . In that case Trial court has visited quite a different placed on a date and time unconnected with the time of the alleged incident for the purpose of deciding whether the witnesses could identify the assailants in the darkness. Apex Court has held that this procedure is quite illegal and it is not permissible to dispose of the case on the basis of spot inspection report without regard to the evidence which is already on record. From perusal of spot map prepared by the police and marked as Annexure P-17 it appears that there is no curve on the road as suggested by the learned Judge. Report prepared by the learned Judge is not accompanied by any map. Judge has not prepared any map to support his findings. Hargovind (P. W. 11) is witness of this spot map (Ex. P-17 ). This witness is examined to prove the said spot map (Ex. P-17) but there is no cross-examination of this witness by the defence suggesting that there is any curve on the road. Judge has not prepared any map to support his findings. Hargovind (P. W. 11) is witness of this spot map (Ex. P-17 ). This witness is examined to prove the said spot map (Ex. P-17) but there is no cross-examination of this witness by the defence suggesting that there is any curve on the road. Similarly, there is no suggestion to the Investigation Officer (P. W. 14) to the effect that there is any curve on the road shown in spot map (Ex. P-17) and Ex. P-17 is not correctly prepared. No such question is put to the eye- witnesses P. W. 8, P. W. 9 and P. W. 10 that any curve is in existence on the road due to which the spot of incident is not visible from the spot where they were standing. In fact, in the present case defence has not taken any such plea and the Court below has in fact invented a plea for accused persons for acquitting them. ( 8. ) IN such circumstances the findings arrived at by the learned judge that these witnesses have not seen the incident can not be sustained. Court below have also disbelieved the statements of Ramcharan (P. W. 8) on the ground that in the FIR he has not mentioned that he was sleeping in the night on his field but this omission is totally irrelevant with the incident. Other ground on which the Court has acquitted the accused person is that independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. It is common knowledge that in the present time independent witnesses seldom come forward to depose about the crime and, therefore, this ground alone is also not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution evidence. ( 9. ) FROM perusal of evidence it appears that there are large number of injuries on the body of the deceased. Injuries alleged by the eye-witnesses are fully corroborated by medical evidence. Their statements can not be disbelieved solely on the ground of enmity. ( 10. ) DEFENCE has examined three witnesses Babulal (D. W. 1), Nar-eshkumar (D. W. 2) and Shivcharan Sharma (D. W. 3 ). But none of these witnesses have deposed in their statements before the Court about the curve in the road found by the learned Judge. Their statements can not be disbelieved solely on the ground of enmity. ( 10. ) DEFENCE has examined three witnesses Babulal (D. W. 1), Nar-eshkumar (D. W. 2) and Shivcharan Sharma (D. W. 3 ). But none of these witnesses have deposed in their statements before the Court about the curve in the road found by the learned Judge. Thus, in the present case the findings of the Trial Court are totally based on the inspection report and the ignorance of the evidence on record. The inspection report of the Judge can not be made sole basis of acquittal as the same is not permissible. The report can not substitute the evidence particularly when the evidence on record is contrary to the inspection report of the learned Judge. ( 11. ) IN such circumstances the judgment of the Sessions Court deserves to be set aside. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of eye-witnesses Rambabu (P. W. 9) and Ramprasad (P. W. 10 ). In such circumstances we held that the accused persons are guilty for committing offences under Sections 148,302/149, IPC and sentence them to life imprisonment. It is directed that accused persons shall surrender before the CJM, Guna within thirty days from the date of this judgment and in case they fail to surrender before the CJM in the aforesaid period, the CJM is directed to issue arrest warrant against the accused persons. ( 12. ) IN the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. Criminal Appeal allowed.