Honble SHARMA, J.–The appellants were accused on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 89/97. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated May 24, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Bundu Khan: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. Jarina: U/s. 302/34 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. (2). The prosecution story is woven like this:- On May 24, 1997 around 6.15 PM Nawal Kishore Sharma (PW.7), who was posted as ASI at Police Station Bagru, recorded parcha bayan of Smt. Kamla (PW.1) at Mridul Agricultural Farm Bindayka. In the parcha bayan Smt. Kamla stated that her husband Mahadev (now deceased) was axed by Bundu Khan while his wife Jarina inflicted lathi-blows. Mangej (PW.8) and Jagdish Bagra (PW.18) had seen the incident. Thereafter Mahadev was taken to Hospital by Madan Dudi and Lallu Meena in a jeep. On the basis of parcha bayan of Kamla initially a case under Sections 307, 324 and 323/34 IPC was registered which was later on converted under Section 302 IPC. After usual investigation the charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. Charges under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 22 documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence and stated that both of them came to Jaipur in the morning on the day of incident and they remained there upto 6.00 PM. They went back in a bus from Jaipur and when got down of the bus at Sirsi Bus-stand they were caught hold of by Lallu, Mangej and other villagers. At that time Mangej who was holding axe told that it was Bundu Khan who killed Mahadev. In support of defence version three witnesses were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). At that time Mangej who was holding axe told that it was Bundu Khan who killed Mahadev. In support of defence version three witnesses were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). It is canvassed on behalf of the appellant that material on record was not properly scanned by the trial Judge and the appellants are victims of conspiracy of Ward Member Ganpat Lal Yadav (PW.10), Mangej (PW.8) and Jagdish (PW.18). The appellants were away from place of incident, but plea of alibi was not correctly assessed. (4). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the evidence collected at the trial conclusively shows that the appellants committed murder of Mahadev. The statements of the witnesses were read over before us and it was urged that since the guilt of the appellants is established beyond reasonable doubt no interference is called for. (5). We have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. (6). The super structure of the prosecution case is founded on the testimony of Smt. Kamla (PW.1), Mangej (PW.8) and Jagdish Bagra (PW.18), who were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Then comes the testimony of Dr. Sumant Datta (PW.4), who performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased. The prosecution case is further supported by the testimony of Ganpat Lal Yadav (PW.10), Dr. G.K. Mathur (PW.12) and Nawal Kishore Sharma (PW.7). (7). A look at the post mortem report (Ex.P-5) goes to show that the deceased sustained as many as nine antemortem injuries thus:- ``1. Incised wound 2, 1/4 x 2cm x bone deep left tibial skin upper 1/3 anteriorly find clotted blood margin clean cut regular wall defined. 2. Incised lacerated wound 1 x 1/2 x bone left 2nd metaconjphalingal joint downy with clotted blood. 3. Abrasion 5 x 2cm left taker high upper 1/3 redish colour. 4. Incised wound 2 x 1/4cm x bone deem on chin with dried clotted blood. 5. Diffuse swelling Rt. Tempo parietal region front. 6. Stab Incised wound 2 x 1/2cm x plenal cavity deep on left side lateral aspect of chest upper part down surgically for drainage. It is 7cm of axila portion aspect. 7. Stitch wound 2cm long with edge clean cut regular wall defined vertically present with clotted blood. Left dorsal of chest infascaple. 8. Tempo parietal region front. 6. Stab Incised wound 2 x 1/2cm x plenal cavity deep on left side lateral aspect of chest upper part down surgically for drainage. It is 7cm of axila portion aspect. 7. Stitch wound 2cm long with edge clean cut regular wall defined vertically present with clotted blood. Left dorsal of chest infascaple. 8. Stitch wound 5cm long with edge clean cut regular wall defined metically part with clotted blood. Left dorsal chest infascaple part in the clotted blood metrically present. 9. Stitch wound 13cm long placed obliquely on left dorsal chest infra scapula area. It is 26cm from left shoulder and 11cm from midment from Linc. On opening of stitches edges marginal clean cut regular wall defined with fresh clotted blood reddish colour on exploration underlying subcutanummenla parietal pleura and visual pleura and left side rib 8th to 10th rib underlying found cut obliquely. In plenal cavity left side about 2lit of blood. Blood clots present. Left lung found collapsed. Lower lobe found cut 17 x 18cm x 7cm fresh clotted blood with tissue staining and anterior healing. Bones are cut clearly through. Thigh wall defined with tissue staining of ribs 8th to 10th completely and obliquely lung tissue of leptical found cut clean wall defined regular in 7cm in clothes with tissue staining. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock brought as a result of ante mortem injury to lung caused by injury No. 9, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is established from the testimony of Dr. Sumant Datta (PW.4) that the death of Mahadev was homicidal. (8). Coming to the testimony of informant Kamla (PW.1) we find that in her cross examination she admitted that she did not see the appellants inflicting injuries on the person of deceased. She also deposed that while Jagdish Bagra caught hold of Bundu Khan, Mangej had snatched the axe from Bundu Khan. ``Kharwaria ko Bundu Khan se Mangej ne khons liya tha. Kharwaria ko Mangej ne kahan par khonsa iska maloom nahin. (Axe had been snatched by Mangej, but she did not know as to at which place the axe was snatched by Mangej). ``Kharwaria ko Bundu Khan se Mangej ne khons liya tha. Kharwaria ko Mangej ne kahan par khonsa iska maloom nahin. (Axe had been snatched by Mangej, but she did not know as to at which place the axe was snatched by Mangej). Mangej (PW.8) in his cross examination deposed that when he along with Kamla and Jagdish reached at the spot they saw Bundu Khan and Jarina running and they caught hold of both of them and got them seated at Mridul Agricultural Farm. At that time no person from the village reached there. Mangej denied to have snatched the axe from the hand of Bundu Khan. He denied the suggestion that Mahadev was killed by the persons belonging to Lallus group and the appellants were falsely implicated in order to shield the real culprits. (9). Jagdish Bagra (PW.18) in his deposition stated that he did not see the appellants inflicting injuries on the person of deceased. In his cross examination he stated that around 3 and 3.30 PM he caught hold of Bundu Khan out side the gate of Mridul Agricultural Farm and he thereafter called Ganpat, Ward Member (PW.10). He remained at the place of occurrence from 3.00 PM to 7.00 PM. He further stated that Jarina was arrested by police at the spot. He denied this fact that Jarina was arrested from Sirsi Bus-stand. (10). On scrutinising the memos drawn by the Investigating Officer we find that Site-plan was drawn vide memo Ex.P-2 at 8.00 PM on May 24, 1997 and motbirs of site-plan were Ganpat Lal Yadav and Jagdish Bagra. As per the entries made in the Inquest Report (Ex.P-3) FIR 227/97 was registered at 4.30 PM on May 24, 1997. Whereas, the parcha bayan of Smt. Kamla (Ex.P-1) which was treated as FIR was recorded at 6.15 PM on May 24, 1997. Vide Seizure memo (Ex.P-8) the axe, allegedly used in the commission of the offence got seized on May 24, 1997 at 6.55 PM and motbirs of the recovery were Ganpat Lal Yadav and Jagdish Bagra. Jarina was arrested on May 24, 1997 at 9.00 PM vide memo Ex.P-15 and Bundu Khan was arrested at 6.55 PM vide memo Ex.P-16. Disclosure statement of Jarina (Ex.P-17) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a lathi got recovered vide memo Ex.P-13 at 9.15 PM. (11). Jarina was arrested on May 24, 1997 at 9.00 PM vide memo Ex.P-15 and Bundu Khan was arrested at 6.55 PM vide memo Ex.P-16. Disclosure statement of Jarina (Ex.P-17) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a lathi got recovered vide memo Ex.P-13 at 9.15 PM. (11). Ganpat Lal Yadav (PW.10) deposed that when Bundu Khan was arrested and the axe was recovered Jarina was not present. Ganpat Lal Yadav further stated that on the date of incident when he was at his office Jagdish Bagra around 2-3 PM informed him about the incident. He then informed the police over telephone and proceeded with Jagdish Bagra on motor-cycle to the spot, where they found gathering of 30-40 persons. After some time the police also arrived. Mahadev had already been taken to the hospital. Bundu Khan who was sitting having axe in his hands, was arrested by the police in his presence. (12). Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the evidence of recovery of blood-stained axe from Bundu Khan cannot be doubted since the motbirs had no enmity with Bundu Khan and even if there is no eye witness of the incident the conduct of Bundu Khan in running with blood stained axe is sufficient to establish his guilt. It is further canvassed that Dr. G.K. Mathur (PW.12) who collected the blood from the spot and from the person of appellant, has established that the blood of the deceased was found on the axe and the clothes of Bundu Khan. Since blood group of Bundu Khan was not ascertained the possibility that blood of clothes being Bundu Khan himself cannot be ruled out. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), indicated that group `B is not an uncommon group of blood and no effect was made to exclude the possibility that the blood of the accused belonged to the same group. The possibility cannot be ruled out that blood of clothes being of accused himself. (13). So far as the recovery of axe from the possession of appellant Bundu Khan is concerned, we find the testimony of motbirs highly doubtful. It is highly unlikely that Bundu Khan, was holding axe from the moment he was caught by the witnesses till his arrest by the police i.e. for a period of more than three hours. (13). So far as the recovery of axe from the possession of appellant Bundu Khan is concerned, we find the testimony of motbirs highly doubtful. It is highly unlikely that Bundu Khan, was holding axe from the moment he was caught by the witnesses till his arrest by the police i.e. for a period of more than three hours. In view of testimony of Smt. Kamla (PW.1) that axe was snatched by Mangej from Bundu Khan, recovery of axe from the possession of Bundu Khan becomes doubtful. (14). Salient features of the prosecution case as noticed by us may summarised as under:- (i) As per inquest report (Ex.P-3) FIR 227/97 was registered at 4.30 PM on May 24, 1997, but the said report was withheld. (ii) The case of prosecution is founded on an another FIR i.e. the parcha bayan of Smt. Kamla (PW.1), which was recorded at 6.15 PM on May 24, 1997. (iii) Evidence of Smt. Kamla (PW.1), Mangej (PW.8) and Jagdish (PW.18) is highly unnatural and their presence at the time of incident is doubtful. (iv) It is difficult to believe that Bundu Khan who was caught hold of around 3.00 PM by Jagdish and Mangej, was keeping axe in his hands till 6.55 PM when the police arrested him. Testimony of Kamla also falsifies the recovery of axe. (v) As per the ocular testimony, Jarina was also caught along with Bundu Khan at 3 PM. But according to the arrest memo she was arrested at 9.00 PM. (vi) The explanation of Jarina recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in court as defence witness (DW.1) show that she along with Bundu Khan had gone to Jaipur and got down from the Bus at 6.00 PM, where they were arrested at the behest of Mangej who at the relevant time was having axe. (vii) Plea of alibi introduced by the appellants was supported by Gopi Ram (DW.2) and Shiv Shankar (DW.3). (15). In Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan vs. Basant Raghunath Dhoble (2), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the courts exist for doing justice to the person who are affected. Justice has no favourite except the truth. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. Justice has no favourite except the truth. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. In the case on hand the prosecution has deliberately withheld the actual FIR. The investigation came to motion at the behest of a political leader who evidently concocted the prosecution story. The persons who did not see the incident were shown as eye witnesses in the charge sheet. Arrests of appellants and recoveries of weapon are also shrouded in mystery. Learned trial Judge overlooked the material discrepancies as well as the evidence of defence witnesses. Thus we find that the guilt of the appellants has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. (16). For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated May 24, 2001 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. We acquit the appellant Bundu Khan of the Charge under Section 302 IPC and appellant Jarina of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant Jarina is on bail she need not to surrender and her bail bonds stand discharged. The appellant Bundu Khan, who is in custody shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.