Honble SHARMA, J.–On the allegation of murder of Shriram, six appellants were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar, who vide judgment dated May 7, 1997 convicted and sentenced each of them as under :- 1. Ram Kunwar : u/Sec. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further sentence of 3 months R.I. u/Sec. 147 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec.148 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec. 447 IPC to suffer RI for one month. 2. Murari Lal : u/Sec.147 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec.148 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec. 447 to suffer RI for one month. u/Sec. 304 Part II/149 IPC to suffer RI for four years. u/Sec. 324 IPC to suffer RI for one year. 3. Lala Ram 4. Kailash Chand 5. Budha Ram 6. Ramavtar : u/Sec. 147 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec. 447 IPC to suffer RI for one month. u/Sec. 304 Part II/149 IPC to suffer RI for four years. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). It is the prosecution version that on June 10, 1996 at around 3.30 p.m., while Shriram (now deceased) was on the tractor and ploughing his field alongwith Sadhu Ram, all the six appellants entered into the field in Jeep No. RJ. 02/1268 driven by Kailash, Ram Kunwar then got halted the tractor, climbed over it and inflicted knife blows on the chest, and back of Shriram, Kailash and Budda caught hold of Shriram and squeezed his testicles. Murari Lal gave knife blows on the left ear and nose of Sadhu Ram. Lala took Sadhu Ram in his grip and Kailash caused injury on his back with chain. Hearing hue and cry when the witnesses arrived, the appellants fled away in the Jeep. Shriram died on the way to the Hospital. A written report to this effect was submitted by Sadhu Ram to the SHO Police Station Narainpur who registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 447 and 302 IPC and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 324, 324/149 and 447 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In their explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Five witnesses in defence were produced by the appellants. On hearing the final submissions, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. (3). We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. (4). Dr. Rajiv Gupta, PW.19 conducted the post mortem on the dated body of Shriram and as per post mortem report Ex.P.45 the deceased sustained as many as 7 anti-mortem injuries, thus :- 1. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 x deep upto thoracic cavity caused by sharp weapon over left nipple. 2. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 x 1 on left renal angle caused by sharp weapon. 3. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 on left mid axiliary line at the level of 5th 6th rib caused by sharp weapon. 4. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 sharp mid axillary line left. 5. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 sharp on back in centre. 6. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 on left gluteal region (blunt). Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 on left side of back (blunt) Cause of death was due to excessive internal haemorrhage caused by stab wound on heart puncturing the left ventricle causing total failure of heart. (5). Dr. Rajiv Gupta also examined Sadhu Ram, who vide Ex. P.44 received following 7 injuries :- 1. Stab wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm. On left maxillary bone near ear pina. 2. Stab wound 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. On left maxillary bone near ear pina 1 cm. Rt. to the injury No.1. 3. Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. 4. Contusion 2.0 cm. x 2 cm. On Rt. side of back. 5. Contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. On Rt. side of back extending from scapular upper border to Rt. gluteal region. 6. Contusion 4 cm. x 4 cm. on left elbow joint. 7. Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. on centre of forehead. (6). x 1.5 cm. 4. Contusion 2.0 cm. x 2 cm. On Rt. side of back. 5. Contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. On Rt. side of back extending from scapular upper border to Rt. gluteal region. 6. Contusion 4 cm. x 4 cm. on left elbow joint. 7. Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. on centre of forehead. (6). In addition to the medical testimony of Dr. Rajiv Gupta, the prosecution chose to rest its case on the evidence of Sadhu Ram (PW.1), Arjun Lal (PW.2), Har Sahai (PW.3), Jai Ram (PW.5), Shimbhu (PW.6), Badri (PW.7), and Harphool PW.8. This evidence is further supported by the testimony of Jagmal (PW.4), who has seen the appellants running from the place of the incident. (7). Sadhuram (PW.1), in his deposition stated that on the date of the incident he and Shriram were ploughing the field while Shriram was plying the tractor, he was doing work of spreading seeds. Suddenly he saw a jeep coming towards the house of Gopal. In the jeep Ram Kunwar, Buddha, Ramavtar, Lala and Murari were sitting and it was driven by Kailash. The jeep got halted infront of the house of Gopal and all the persons entered inside the house. After some time they came out with Knives, chain and lathies. Ram Kunwar climbed over the tractor and inflicted knife blow on the person of Shriram. Ram Kunwar, Buddha, and Kailash pushed Shriram down on the ground. Ram Kunwar then inflicted knife blow on the backbone of Shriram. Kailash squeezed his testicles. Murari gave knife blows on the ear and nose of Sadhu Ram whereas Kailash hit his back with chain. Shriram died on the way to the Hospital. In the Hospital Sadhu Ram got the report written by one vikram. (8). Har Sahai (PW.3), Jai Ram (PW.5), Shimbhu (PW.6), Badri (PW.7) and Harphool (PW.8) in their statements almost reproduced the version narrated by Sadhu Ram. In his deposition Jagmal (PW.4) however stated that on hearing hue and cry when reached at the spot he could only see Ram Kumar, Murari, Lala Ram, Buddha, kailash and Ramavtar running. (9). On the basis of disclosure statement of Ram Kunwar he got recovered knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. He also recovered lathi at the instance of Murari Lal and chain as per information given by Kailash. (10). Mr. (9). On the basis of disclosure statement of Ram Kunwar he got recovered knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. He also recovered lathi at the instance of Murari Lal and chain as per information given by Kailash. (10). Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the FIR is concocted fabricated document and whole structure of prosecution case stands on a weak foundation. It is further contended that the statement of Sadhuram (PW.1) was not corroborated by the medical evidence and in view of material contradictions in his testimony no reliance can be placed on him. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are got up witnesses and their testimony deserves to be discarded. Learned counsel further urged that on one hand injuries by knife have been attributed to Murari Lal but on the other hand lathi got recovered at his instance. The prosecution failed to establish that there existed unlawful assembly. The recovery of knife at the instance of Ram Kunwar was concocted one and the appellants were falsely implicated in the case. (11). Per contra Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned PP and Mr. Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that there is no reason to disbelieve the FIR as it was lodged promptly. The testimony of the witnesses was trustoworty and it was rightly relied upon by the learned trial judge. (12). The salient features as noticed by us on a close scrutiny of material on record, may be summarized thus - (i) In the written report (Ex.P.1) it was stated that all the six appellants straightway entered into the field in a Jeep but at the trial the prosecution witnesses deposed that Jeep got halted in front of the house of Gopal, the appellant went inside the house and then came out armed with knife, chain and lathies. (ii) The allegation against Kailash and Buddha was that they caught hold of Shriram and squeezed his testicles but in the postmortem report no injury was found on the testicles of Shriram. (ii) The allegation against Kailash and Buddha was that they caught hold of Shriram and squeezed his testicles but in the postmortem report no injury was found on the testicles of Shriram. (iii) As per the testimony of Sadhuram, Murari Lal inflicted knife blow on his ear and nose but according to the statement of Investigation officer Kanhaiya Lal, Murari Lal informed him under section 27 Evidence Act that he could recover lathi used in commission of offence and on the basis of said disclosure statement of Murari Lal, lathi was recovered. (iv) Kanhaiya Lal also stated that in the investigation it was detected that Jeep was in the possession of Ram Kunwar. (v) Ram Kunwar is the son of Gopal and knife allegedly recovered at his instance was stained with blood. (vi) As per Sadhu Ram he did not see the imprints of chain on his shirt. (vii) Sadhu Ram also deposed that after the doctor declared Shriram dead, he went to Bus Stand and came back after getting the report written by Vikram and remained in the hospital for one hour. (13). The Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh (1), indicated that ``crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime the court has to judge the evidence by a yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which were fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. (14). While considering the prosecution evidence by a yardstick of probabilities the first question which we must address ourselves is as to whether the incident had occurred in the manner alleged by the prosecution and whether all the appellants were responsible for the crime. As already noticed by us that the prosecution witnesses introduced a new version at the trial that the jeep initially got halted infront of the house of Gopal and all the appellants had gone inside the house and after sometime came out armed with knife, chain and lathies. As already noticed by us that the prosecution witnesses introduced a new version at the trial that the jeep initially got halted infront of the house of Gopal and all the appellants had gone inside the house and after sometime came out armed with knife, chain and lathies. This narration did not find place in the written report, which was also got written by a stranger Vikram who neither faced investigation nor did appear before the trial court. It is also rather strange and inexplicable as to why the investigating officer got recorded the disclosure statement of Murari Lal and recovered lathi at his instance, against whom allegation was that he inflicted knife blows on the person of Sadhu Ram. Ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses that Kailash and Buddha caught hold of Shriram and squeezed his testicles did not find support from the post mortem report of Shriram. It could also not be established that Saddhu Ram was hit by chain on his back by Kailash as neither imprints of chain were noticed by Sadhu Ram on his shirt nor did the doctor depose that Sadhu Ram received injuries on is back as a result of hit by chain. Because of these material infirmities the possibility of overimplication of appellants Murarilal, Lalaram, Kailash Chand, Budda Ram ad Ramavtar can not be ruled out. We have therefore to look at the evidence in order to separate the chaff from the grain. (15). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikbal M. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2), observed thus- ``We are quite aware of the principle that in a country like India where it is difficult to find witness who has not made any embellishment or exaggeration and therefore, in such case court would be justified in separating the chaff from the grain and then act upon the grain.... (16). For the purpose of considering the case of Ram Kunwar when we look at the prosecution evidence we find that all the eye witnesses consistently deposed that he got halted the tractor plying by Shriram, climbed over it and inflicted knife blow on his chest. After Shriram fell down on the ground Ram Kunwar again caused knife injury on the back of Shriram. Ocular testimony finds support from the Postmortem report of Shriram and Dr. After Shriram fell down on the ground Ram Kunwar again caused knife injury on the back of Shriram. Ocular testimony finds support from the Postmortem report of Shriram and Dr. Rajiv Gupta testified that cause of death of Shriram was the stab wound on his heart. Investigating Officer Kanhaiya Lal got recovered knife at the instance of Ram Kunwar and this fact further strengthened the prosecution case qua Ram Kunwar. We thus find that clause thirdly of section 300 IPC is attracted and Ram Kunwar was rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Judge but so far as charges under sections 147, 148 and 447 IPC are concerned they however could not be established against him. (17). Having considering the prosecution evidence qua the appellants Murari lal, Lala Ram, Kailash Chand, Budha Ram and Ramavtar we find that it is replete with inherent improbabilities and meaningful embellishments. The evidence of prosecution witnesses against these appellants, as we have discussed hereinabove, sounds highly improbable and we find ourselves unable to accept it. Overimplication of these appellants as already held by us, cannot be ruled out. The learned trial judge appears to have overlooked the improbabilities and meaningful embellishments noticed by us, which were extremely damaging to the prosecution case against these appellants. The evidence led by the prosecution cannot be regarded sufficient to find conviction of the appellants Murari Lal, Lala Ram, Kailash Chand, Budha Ram and Ramavtar and they are entitled to benefit of doubt. (18). As a result of the above discussion, we dipose of the instant appeal in the following terms :- (i) Appeal of Murari Lal, Lala Ram, Kailash Chand, Budha Ram and Ramavtar stands allowed and they are acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 447, 304 Part II read with sections 149 and 324 IPC. They are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (ii) Appeal of Ram Kunwar is dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC stand confirmed. He however stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 447 IPC. (iii) Impugned judgment of the learned trial judge stands modified as indicated above.