S.K. GUPTA, J.: - We have heard Mr. K.S. Johal. learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellant as also Mr. J.P. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents in extenso. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 9-8-1990 propounded by learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, whereby accused Ashok Kumar and Nursing Paul have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302, R.P.C. by giving a benefit of doubt. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal depicted in narration are that on the statement of Mst. Vidya Devi, widow of the deceased, a case under Section 302, R.P.C. stood registered against the accused. 4. The case of the prosecution stemning out of the record is that on 25-8-1987, Parkash Chand deceased, had been assaulted by the accused in village Damhal and was brought to the District Hospital Kathua in a precarious condition. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26-8-1987. It is further borne out that there was an animosity between the accused and the deceased as the share of land belonging to Ram Lal, brother of the deceased, who died issueless, was held by the deceased and the deceased was not allowed by the accused and their father to thrash the wheat in his compound. 5. The complainant, on being informed by a girl about the assault on her husband, accompanied by her two daughters PWs Kamlesh and Veena rushed to the place of occurrence. On reaching the spot, it is found that accused Ashok Kumar possessing a Darat and Nursing Paul a Lathi assaulting the deceased while Kaushal Singh pelting stones on the deceased. On seeing the complainant and her daughters, Kaushal Singh fled away from the spot, whereas accused Ashok Kumar asked the complainant to take away the dead body of the deceased. On hearing the shrieks of the complainant, people from nearby repaired to the scene of occurrence. 6. The statement of Vidya Devi, according to the prosecution was recorded on 26-8-1987 soon after the deceased was declared dead which formed the basis of the F.I.R. The accused were finally sent up to stand their trial for alleged offence under Section 302/323, RPC and the learned trial Court held that the entire prosecution case bristles with improbabilities and by giving them the benefit of doubt acquitted the accused. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. K.S. Johal, AAG, appearing for appellant, vehemently urged that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. Both the direct and circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is consistent, positive and cogent only with the hypothesis that accused alone had killed the deceased. Whereas Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that serious inconsistency found in the statements of eye-witnesses recorded by the Police and their evidence in the Court clearly proves that they are not the witnesses of occurrence and their evidence is qualitatively insufficient to support the charges against the accused. It is further submitted that even the investigation had been unfair and the other incriminating circumstances coupled with the alleged recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure statement of accused rendered the prosecution case redolent with doubt and suspicion and therefore, do not warrant the conviction of the accused. It is further contended by Mr. Singh that there was no reliable evidence to support the accusation against the accused and the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. In this case the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is both direct and circumstantial. 9. The direct evidence consisted of the statement of PWs Vidya Devi, widow of the deceased Kamlesh Kumari and Veena Devi, daughters of the deceased, besides Sandesh Kumari and Maya Devi, out of whom first three have been examined and other two given up by the prosecution for different reasons. The circumstantial evidence mainly comprises of the discovery of the weapons of offence under Section 107 of the Evidence Act and the medical evidence. 10. According to the prosecution, Maya Devi and Sandesh Kumari are the first witnesses of the occurrence. PW Maya Devi stated to have sent Sandesh Kumari to the house of the deceased to inform the widow and daughters of the deceased about the assault. PW Sandesh Kumari, according to the prosecution after covering a distance of 1½ Km from the place of occurrence to the house of the deceased passed on information to the widow Vidya Devi and daughters of the deceased, who also reached on spot after receipt of this information after covering a distance of 1½ Km. However, neither Maya Devi, nor Sandesh Kumari has been examined by the prosecution. However, neither Maya Devi, nor Sandesh Kumari has been examined by the prosecution. PW Sandesh Kumari was given up in stating that she was an unnecessary witness and Maya Devi to have been gained over by the accused. 11. Assuming that Sandesh Kumari, according to the prosecution is not the witness of the occurrence and she has not given the names of the assailants to the police, but she has clearly stated that she was attracted by the shrieks of the deceased for help which persuaded her to inform about the incident to PW Kamlesh Kumari. It is a normal human conduct that on hearing the shrieks, one would like to go on spot and see the cause of it, out of anxiety. Kamlesh Kumari, however, in her evidence in the Court denied that a girl of tender age also disclosed the names of the assailants assaulting the deceased and in that event the best witness could be PW Sandesh Kumari, to test the veracity of Kamlesh Kumari, so as to find out as to which of the two version, one before the police and second before the Court is true. Even the Investigating Officer, who had examined Kamlesh Kumari could not do much to clarify and explain this position and simply stated in a causal manner that Sandesh Kumari did not name the assailants. This made her examination more necessary to elicit the material facts from her evidence by the prosecution to prove its case. Similarly, Maya Devi also made significant violations to the police with regard to the occurrence. She stated before the police that after collecting grass, she was returning home when saw all the three accused assaulting the deceased. It is also in her statement that accused No. 1 Ashok Kumar was armed with a Drat, accused No. 2 Narsing Paul with a lathi and third accused Koushal Singh with a stone. She further stated before the police to have urged before the accused not to assault the deceased but the former continued assaulting the deceased. This clearly shows that Maya Devi narrated Sandesh Kumari about the assault and also the assailants. This also made the examination of Sandesh Kumari all the more necessary to prove these material facts and this witness having been given up by the prosecution caused a serious dent of its case. This clearly shows that Maya Devi narrated Sandesh Kumari about the assault and also the assailants. This also made the examination of Sandesh Kumari all the more necessary to prove these material facts and this witness having been given up by the prosecution caused a serious dent of its case. The prosecution case, therefore, rests on the evidence of three eye witnesses after having given up Sandesh Kumari and Maya Devi most important and material witnesses in the case. 12. Before adverting to the evidence of other three eye witnesses, namely, the widow and daughters of the deceased, it is meaningful to point out certain admitted facts of the case. The widow and two daughters of the deceased were not present at the scene of the occurrence and reached the spot only after receiving information from Sandesh Kumari about the assault on the deceased. It is also not disputed that the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the deceased was about 1 ½ Km. Sandesh Kumari after covering this distance reached the house of the deceased and informed Kamlesh Kumari about the occurrence, which took her about 10 minutes to reach there. Another 10 minutes must have been taken by the widow and daughters of the deceased to reach the place of assault. It is further the case of the prosecution that the assault had occurred much earlier when Maya Devi had seen all the three accused assaulting the deceased with the Drat lathi and stone in their possession. It is also in the statement of Maya Devi that when she saw the accused hitting the deceased by using lathi drat and stone freely and the deceased was crying in agony, intervened and virtually begged for life of the deceased, Accused however, threatened her to leave the place. She however, met Sandesh Kumari on the way and asked her to inform Kamlesh Kumari in the house of the deceased about the assault. 13. Whether the assault continued for further period of 20 minutes when Vidya Devi accompanied by her two daughters reached the place of occurrence, after Maya Devi had seen the accused assaulting the deceased and then asked Sandesh Kumari to inform Kamlesh Kumari in the house of the deceased which is at a distance of l½ Km. from the spot which could be gathered only from the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 14. from the spot which could be gathered only from the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 14. PW Vidya Devi, widow of the deceased on reaching the spot raised an alarm and accused Narsing Pal and Koushal Singh fled away. It is also in her evidence that Ashok Kumar, however, gave a Drat blow on the right shoulder of the deceased and other on his neck and third on the left thigh. She also stated to have seen accused No. 2 Narsing Pal assaulting the deceased with a Bamboo stick and accused No. 3 Koushal Singh with a stone, held by them, so is affirmed by Veena Devi and Kamlesh Kumari, daughters of the deceased in their respective evidence. It is, however, to be seen as to whether the evidence rendered by these witnesses find support in the medical testimony. 15. Dr. Madhu Sethi conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and also indicated the injuries in the postmortem report found on the dead body of the deceased at the time of its examination. Dr. Madhu Sethi recorded as many as seven injuries in the certificate, found on the deceased, out of which three injuries, were given as clean cut incised wounds. The eye witnesses have stated about three injuries alleged to have been inflicted by accused Ashok Kumar with a Drat. These witnesses have also given the place of its infliction in their evidence which are not in accord with three injuries described in the postmortem report by the Doctor. These witnesses have narrated only about three injuries that have been caused by accused Ashok Kumar meaning thereby that the other injuries were inflicted prior to their reaching the spot. So the evidence of these witness being not in conformity with the medical opinion with regard to the injuries caused by Ashok Kumar accused with a sharp weapon cannot be accepted. This is obvious for the reason that either the witnesses are telling lie and have not seen the occurrence or the medical evidence is unbelievable. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by a team of three Doctors. Hardly there are any chances of mistake to creep in while recording the injuries on the person of the deceased during the autopsy and this rules out the possibility of dis believing the medical evidence. 16. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by a team of three Doctors. Hardly there are any chances of mistake to creep in while recording the injuries on the person of the deceased during the autopsy and this rules out the possibility of dis believing the medical evidence. 16. On the other hand however, the witnesses could be said to have not seen the occurrence in the manner narrated by them. This we say so because the statements made by the witnesses before the I.O. Baldev Singh do not disclose either the injuries or which of the accused had inflicted on the deceased. This is in the statements of the witnesses recorded in the Court with regard to the injuries inflicted on the deceased at which place and by which accused. But this evidence being not in accord with the medical evidence itself is sufficient to disbelieve their testimony so far as the occurrence is concerned. Apart from that, it is in the statement of PW Vidya Devi that she did not narrated the occurrence to the Doctor who treated her husband in the hospital, but it is so found in the statement of PW Baldev Singh. This shows that the evidence of either of the two witnesses is not true. However, it is the normal human conduct that witness who is all along with her injured husband at the time of treatment in the hospital, would disclose to the Doctor attending him or other persons accompanied her in the hospital the identity and the names of the assailants, besides the manner in which the assault had been committed by the accused on the deceased. It is also elicit from the evidence; of these related eye witnesses that no one was informed about the manner in which the deceased was injured and by whom till their statements were recorded by the police, including those who reached the place of occurrence and took the deceased home first and then to the hospital. The explanation given by ASI Bharat Bhushan, who reached the hospital that he did not enquire from Vidya Devi PW about the occurrence is un believable being not truthful. The conduct of Vidya Devi was highly un natural and contrary to the normal conduct of a human being. The explanation given by ASI Bharat Bhushan, who reached the hospital that he did not enquire from Vidya Devi PW about the occurrence is un believable being not truthful. The conduct of Vidya Devi was highly un natural and contrary to the normal conduct of a human being. In normal course, a wife who has seen the accused giving a fatal blow to her husband would name the assailant to all persons and to the police at an earliest opportunity. We do not find anything in the evidence of Vidya Devi to justify this un natural and impracticable conduct and thus cast a serious doubt on the credibility of this witness. 17. It is not only PW Vidya Devi, but her daughters also did not give the names of the assailants, who inflicted fatal blows to their father to any body in the village, which is consisted of about 70 houses till 27-8-1987, when their statements were recorded by the police about two days of the occurrence. This further casts a shadow of doubt on the evidence provided by the witnesses as to their correctness and truthfulness. Further, the inconsistencies and glaring discrepancies found in the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely Vidya Devi PW on the one hand & Kamlesh Kumari & Veena Devi on the other hand, is that PW Vidya Devis evidence was recorded first in point of time, stated to have seen the assailants assaulting the deceased from a distance of 130 yards and raised an alarm, whereas it is unfolded in the evidence of Kamlesh Kumari and Veena Devi, daughters of the deceased to have seen the occurrence and the accused hitting the deceased from a distance of 20 ft. This provides another circumstance to render the evidence of the related eye-witnesses doubtful and incredible. 18. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of eye-witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely, whether in the circumstances of the case it was possible for the eye-witnesses to be present at the scene and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in manner and context of the case and not by entering into realm of conjecture and speculation. Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in manner and context of the case and not by entering into realm of conjecture and speculation. On scrutinizing the evidence of PWs Vidya Devi, Veena Devi and Kamlesh Kurnari, it is found that their evidence besides being in-consistent with each other, is in conflict with the medical testimony regarding the manner of assault by accused Ashok Kumar and Narsing Pal. Three injuries are attributed to accused Ashok Kumar with sharp edged weapon indicating the place of its infliction expressly, which do not confirm to the portion of the body indicated in the medical evidence. It is also in the evidence of the eye-witnesses that assault with a lathi by accused Narsing Pal on the deceased resulted in fracture of the denture and the teeth had come out two of which were picked up by Vidya Devi, is also not in accord with the medical evidence. This contradiction, variation and conflict between the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence has not been explained by the prosecution. This further improbabilises the version of PW Vidya Devi. Kamlesh Kumari and Veena Devi, with the entire occurrence having taken place in their presence. 19. Looking to the injuries given, seven in number, found on the person of the deceased as per the medical opinion, it is amply clear that the assault must have started much before the arrival of the related eyewitnesses on the spot. This is so even according to PW Maya Devi, who stated before the police that the deceased was beaten by the accused, who were using freely Drat, lathi and stones. PW Maya Devi also stated to have seen the assault while returning. She also did not know as to how and when the accused started assaulting the deceased. This clearly shows that the injuries have been inflicted either before or in presence of Maya Devi. If Maya Devi is to be believed, the evidence provided by three related witnesses is not truthful. Maya Devi has not been examined and given up by the prosecution, without giving any explanation. Her evidence could be tested only had she been examined in the Court. If Maya Devi is to be believed, the evidence provided by three related witnesses is not truthful. Maya Devi has not been examined and given up by the prosecution, without giving any explanation. Her evidence could be tested only had she been examined in the Court. Undoubtedly, the medical evidence is only evidence of opinion which is neither decisive nor conclusive. It cannot be given preference over the ocular evidence. Where the conflict between the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence pertains to the number and nature of the injuries and the place of their infliction between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to explain the conflict and the failure of the prosecution to render such explanation entitles the accused benefit of doubt. Again the failure to name the assailants to those persons who assembled on the spot after hearing the shrieks or when the deceased was taken to home and then to the hospital, by the widow and daughters of the deceased and their silence up to 28-7-1987 till the were examined by the I.O. without adequate and plausible explanation, which is contrary to the normal human conduct, improbabilises the prosecution version as to the manner in which the occurrence took place. The inconsistencies appearing in the statements of the eyewitnesses recorded by the police and their evidence in the Court goes to the root of the case. Even all important probable factors do not echo in favour of the version narrated by these witnesses. Three related eye-witnesses having reached the place of occurrence and to have witnessed the assault is highly doubtful because of the distance between their house and the place of occurrence where the accused were allegedly assaulting the deceased. It is also not believable that the witnesses could have identified the accused even if they had managed to reach near the place of occurrence from a distance of 130 yards. What is gatherable undisputedly from their conduct is that they must have gone to the place of occurrence after being informed by Sandesh Kumari and Maya Devi to bring the injured home and then to the hospital because by that time the assailants had disappeared. 20. The investigation of this case also seems to have been conducted in a most reckless and casual manner. 20. The investigation of this case also seems to have been conducted in a most reckless and casual manner. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer no where indicate from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. The site plan as stated by the Investigating Officer was prepared by him by his own assessment and not at the instance of any of the related witnesses. Even the site plan does not mention the place where Maya Devi was cutting the grass. The site plan further does not; show about the distance from where the witnesses have seen the occurrence. The Police Station Kathua was immediately informed by the Doctor as soon as the deceased was brought to the hospital. ASI Bharat Bhushan detailed to the hospital did not record the statement of Vidya Devi though present at that time. He even did not inform about this fact to the SHO of the concerned Police Station. There seems to be a deliberate attempt on the police officer to suppress the facts because he appears to have received the information regarding the manner in which the deceased was injured. 21. According to the eye-witnesses their statements were recorded a day after the death of the deceased, contrary to what has been stated by the Investigating Officer. The version given by the related witnesses appears to be correct because when the dead body was being prepared for last rites, it is not expected that widow and the daughters would be available for recording their statements. It is in the statement of PW Baldev Singh that he examined the related witnesses on 26-6-1987 except Vidya Devi, which is contradicted by Kamlesh Kumari and Veena Devi who stated that the were examined a day after the death of the deceased. This further finds support from the fact that there is a delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate where it was received at 1 PM on 27-8-1987 which shows that the same might have been registered only on 27-8-1987 after the statements of Vidya Devi, Kamlesh Kumari and Veena Devi were recorded. This further casts a serious doubt as to the credibility of the witnesses and goes to the very fabric of the case. 22. This further casts a serious doubt as to the credibility of the witnesses and goes to the very fabric of the case. 22. The other serious infirmity which goes to the root of the matter is that no disclosure had been made by the accused for a week after their arrest. Drat EXPW-4 as per the recovery memo was found stained with blood. The group of the blood having not been determined could not be traced to the commission of the offence requiring a special attention to be taken in appreciating the evidence of incriminating nature. In appreciating the evidence against the accused the prime duty of the Court is firstly to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible, that the witnesses are credible and have no interest in implicating the accused or have an ulterior motive. Where the prosecution does not come out with the whole unvarnished truth, Court can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher the truth and determine the credibility of the witness. The real tests are how consistent the story is with itself, how it stands the test of cross-examination and how far it fits in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. Cross-examination is not the only method of discrediting a witness. The veracity of a witness is judged not solely from his individual statement but from his testimony taken in conjunction with all other facts brought out in the course of the testimony. Where improvements in earlier version are made at the trial, the Court should sift the evidence with extraordinary caution and accept those portions which appear full trustworthy either intrinsically or by corroboration from the other trustworthy evidence. Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter because it demolishes his testimony in entirety. In the instant case, the inconsistencies and improbabilities found in the testimony of the related eye-witnesses and other circumstances pertained to the significant vital and material aspect of the case and thus demolish the prosecution case like pack of cards. The evidence rendered by the related eye-witnesses is partisan studded with improbabilities as the best independent evidence has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. The evidence rendered by the related eye-witnesses is partisan studded with improbabilities as the best independent evidence has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. The witnesses examined are related and interested and their evidence is tainted and smack of partisan and therefore, cannot be relied upon without corroboration from independent evidence. That apart, in view of the glaring inconsistency between the ocular evidence and medical evidence about the nature of the weapon and injuries, it is extremely un-safe and hazardous to connect the accused with the commission of the crime to hold them guilty of the offence to which they stand charged. Applying the rule of caution their evidence is found to be untrustworthy on account of improbabilities found in their testimony. It is well settled proposition of law that unless there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused on the basis of evidence on record, the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with in appeal. The general principle of presumption of innocence of the accused and the benefit of reasonable doubt given by the trial Court to the accused should be kept in mind by the appellate Court while dealing with such an appeal, is the view expressed by the Apex Court in Patel Hiralal Jotiaram v. State of Gujarat, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1 : (AIR 2001 SC 2944). 23. Taking conspectus of facts and circumstances discussed above. We do not find any infirmity legal or factual, in the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court necessitating interference in appeal. There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.