Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-No doubt, death is certain, whosoever born in this dreary world, has to leave for heavenly abode, but, equally the sad demise is painful, if it takes place at the early age, without any rhyme or reason, without any fault or misdeed and that too, by their own people/in laws’, where she is expected to live safe and secure. A poor young lady, Smt. Pooni, lost her valuable life on December 19, 1996. According to the complainant- party, she was mercilessly killed by Ram Dayal, Mohan Lal and Ramji Lal, whereas, the other part of story is that she has been done to death by their own persons, relatives and complainant party, where she had been residing in a separate room of their house. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated October 31, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, district Dausa, in Sessions Case No. 19/2000, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants Ram Dayal, Mohan Lal and Ramjilal under Section 302/34, IPC, for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 458, IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Against this Judgment of conviction and sentence, the action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to by the accused-appellants Ram Dayal, Mohan Lal and Ramjilal. 4. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 112.96, one Jagmohan Sb. Shri Ganpat lodged a First Information Report (Ex.P 43) dated 10.1.93 with the Police Station, Lalsot, stating, inter alia, therein that at about 6-7 p.m. he along with his family members was sitting in his house. All of a sudden, Ramjilal Sb Mool Chand, Ramniwas Sb. Mool Chand, Mohanlal Sb. Ramphool, Harikishan Sb. Ramphool, Ramprasad Sb, Ramphool, Ramdayal Sb. Gopal, Smt. Sheopyari W/o. Harikishan and Smt. Prem W/o. Badharam armed with ‘lathis’ and ‘Gandasis’, came to his house and started beating. The informant received injuries on his left and right hand. His father Shri Ganpat was also inflicted a number blows on his body. He further stated that his mother also received injuries and his brother-Raju was given serious beating, as a result of which he became unconscious in our house. The informant received injuries on his left and right hand. His father Shri Ganpat was also inflicted a number blows on his body. He further stated that his mother also received injuries and his brother-Raju was given serious beating, as a result of which he became unconscious in our house. He also stated in the FIR that his brother Harkesh’s wife- Smt. Pooni was also inflicted with a number of blows, as a result of which she also became unconscious and is lying on the death bed. The accused-persons have also broken the doors of their house. There was an old enmity between the complainant-party and the accused- persons and litigation is also going on in between them. Due to that enmity, the persons of the complainant-party were beaten by the accused-persons. Lastly, he stated that he has come to lodge the FIR with great difficulty and the action be taken against the accused in accordance with the law. 5. On the aforesaid report, a case, bearing FIR No. 464/96 under Sections 147, 452, 307, 341, 323 and 427 IPC, was registered and investigation commenced. Site was inspected, Site- plans were prepared. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C, were recorded by the Police. 6. During the course of investigation, Smt. Pooni W/o. Harkesh died, so offence under Section 302, IPC, was also added. Panchnama of the dead body of Smt. Pooni was drawn. Autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by a Medical Board. Accused-appellants were arrested and at their instance, Gandasi, sickles and ‘kuihari’ were recovered and sealed. 7. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 325, 427, 452, 458, 307, 302/149, IPC, was filed against the accused-persons, including the accused-appellants Ramdayal, Mohanlal and Ramjilal in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Dausa, from were it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. 8. In due course, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, framed charges under Sections 147, 458, 302/149, 325/149 and 323, IPC, against the accused appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses, i. e., PW. 1 to P.W. 20 and exhibited 55 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P55. 8. In due course, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, framed charges under Sections 147, 458, 302/149, 325/149 and 323, IPC, against the accused appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses, i. e., PW. 1 to P.W. 20 and exhibited 55 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P55. The defence examined 3 witnesses, D.W. 1 to D. W. 3 and, thereafter, the explanation of the accused-appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C, was recorded. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and examining the documents produced by the prosecution during the curse of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide its Judgment dated 310.2000. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal. 12. PW 1 Smt. Anita has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C, that on 212.96, she was working in the S.P. Office, Dausa. On that day, on the order of the S.H.O., Lalsot, she arrested Smt. Prem Vide Ex.P1 and Smt. Sheopyari W/o. Shri Harkishan Vide Ex.P2. She also stated that on the aforesaid arrest memos, she put her signatures at ‘A’ to ‘B’ and got the thumb impression of the accused at place ‘X’. 13. PW 2 Dr. Han Prasad Sharma has stated in his statement dated 8.97 recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C, that on 20.12.96, he was posted as Medical Officer at Referal Hospital, Lalsot. On that day, on the request-application of the Police, he examined the injuries on the body of Rajesh Sb. Ganpat and found seven injuries on his person. All the injuries were simple in nature. Duration of the injuries was 24 hours. His injury report is Ex.P 9. He also advised him for X-ray of his left hand. He further stated that on the same day, at 7.30 p.m., he also examined injures Smt. Mishri wbo. Ganpat. In all, the there were five injuries on her person, who were caused within 24 hours of the examination. Injury No. 4 was simple in nature, whereas for injuries No. 1,2,3 and 5, he had advised her for X-ray. Her injury report is Ex.P 10. Dr. Ganpat. In all, the there were five injuries on her person, who were caused within 24 hours of the examination. Injury No. 4 was simple in nature, whereas for injuries No. 1,2,3 and 5, he had advised her for X-ray. Her injury report is Ex.P 10. Dr. Han Prasad Sharma also examined Smt. Basanti W/o. Jagmohan on the same day at 7.45 a. m. He found four injuries on her person. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 were simple in nature and were caused by Kundale. For injury No. 3, he has advised her for X-ray. All the injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination. On the same day, at 8.15 p. m., Jagmohan Sb Ganpat was examined by the Doctor and he found three injuries on his person. All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by Kundale. 14. In thecross-examination, Dr. Han Prasad Sharma stated that injuries No. 1 and 7 can be caused by falling from head- downward, as mentioned in Ex.P 9 and injuries No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 can be caused-by rolling on the stony land. Injuries No. 2 to 6 can be caused by blunt weapon. He also stated that the injuries as mentioned in Ex.P 9, could have been caused within two hours and within 23 hours also. He stated that injury No. 1 can be caused by falling on the hard surface, as mentioned in Ex.P 10 and duration of the injuries was 23 hours. The Doctor stated that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P 11 and Ex.P 12 could have been caused within 2 to 23 hours. Injuries No. 1 and 3 were superficial in nature, because there were abrasions as mentioned in Ex.P. 12. The Doctor further stated that injuries No. 1 and 2 of Ex.P 11 could have been caused by falling on the hard surface. 15. Dr. Han Prasad Sharma stated that on 19. 12. 96, he examined the irjuries of Mangli W/o. Shambhu and found two injuries on her person. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature. He advised her for X-ray of injury No. 1. The injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination. 16. On 112.96, injured Ramdayal Sb. Gopal was examined. In all, four injuries were found on his person. 96, he examined the irjuries of Mangli W/o. Shambhu and found two injuries on her person. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature. He advised her for X-ray of injury No. 1. The injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination. 16. On 112.96, injured Ramdayal Sb. Gopal was examined. In all, four injuries were found on his person. Injuries No. 1 to 3 were simple in nature and for injury No. 4, he had advised him for X-ray All the injuries were said to have been caused within 24 hours of the examination of the injured. 17. lujured Mohanlal Sb. Ramphool was examined on the same day. Four injuries were found on his person. Injuries No. 2 to 4 were simple in nature and for injury No. 1, X-ray was advised. Duration of the injuries was 24 hours. .18. InjuresRamjilal Sb. Mool Chand was also examined on 19’. 12.96. In all, four injuries were found on his body. All the injuries were caused by Kundalay. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 4 were simple in nature and X-ray was .advised for injury No. 3. The injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination. 19. Geeta D/o. Ramphool was examined on the same day by Dr. han Prasad Sharma. There were abraisons of 3 x 3 cm. on the scapular region. There was complaint of pain on the left scapular region. Duration of the injuries was 24 hours. Injury of Mohanlal was also examined, for which he was advised for X-ray. 20. It may be mentioned that Dr. Han Prasad Sharma was subjected to lengthy cross-examination during his depositions and he has given detailed descriptions of the injuries of all the injured persons as regards the nature, size, depth and probability of causing the injuries. 21. PW 3 Rajesh has stated in his statement dated 28.97 that about 6-7 months ago, I was at my home along with my father and brother. There was already enmity in respect of land with the accused, prior to this incident. Smt. Poona had gone to our filed for ousting a he-buffalo, were Mohan Lal was raising a ‘dola’ in our field. Smt. Poona asked him not to raise ‘dola’ by collecting sand. Mohan Lal started to abuse Smt. Pooni. She came running to our house and narrated the incident. Thereafter, Mohanlal, Ramjilal and Ramdayal followed her. Smt. Poona had gone to our filed for ousting a he-buffalo, were Mohan Lal was raising a ‘dola’ in our field. Smt. Poona asked him not to raise ‘dola’ by collecting sand. Mohan Lal started to abuse Smt. Pooni. She came running to our house and narrated the incident. Thereafter, Mohanlal, Ramjilal and Ramdayal followed her. Ramjilal asked to Mohanlal, were Smt. Pooni was? Ramjilal replied that Smt. Pooni had hidden herself in the room. Then Ramjilal and Ramdayal broke open the door by pushing it. Smt. Pooni had come to ‘Chhapar’ for hiding herself At that time. Mohan Lal gave a kuihari blow on the head of Smt. Pooni, Ramdayal gave a blow of’kharwari’ on her ear. Then stated that Ramdayal gave a sickle (‘daantla’) blow on the head of Smt. Pooni. When the accused-person were beating Smt. Pooni, we were in our room. He also stated that he along with Raju, his mother Mishri and Bhabhi Basanti came to intervene and get Srnt.Tooni freed from the clutches of the accused persons, then accused also gave beating to us. He stated that after the accused gave beating, Ramprasad, Harikishan, Prema Wbo. Bharat Ram, Supyari Wbo. Harikishan and Ramniwas also came to the incident. My brother Jagmohan gave beating to Ramprasad on his hand, my father Ganpat was given beating by Harikishan and my mother and Bhabhi (Mishri Devi and Basanti) were given beating by both the women accused. Our injuries were examined by the Doctor. During cross-examination, he told that Smt. Pooni was beaten in the ‘Chhapra’ and not in the room. He also stated that it is wrong to say that when the Police arrived, the dead body of Smt. Pooni was wrapped in the ‘razai’. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had given statement to the Police that Ramjilal asked Mohanlal, were Smt. Pooni was and he replied that Smt. Pooni is hiding in the room. He does not know why this statement was not recorded by the police in Ex.P 6. 22. PW 4 Ganpat has stated in his statement dated 22. 8. 97 that about eight months ago, while he was at his house, Smt. Pooni had gone to our field to oust he-buffalo. Mohanlal was pushing away ‘sarson’ and raising a ‘dola’ in our field. Smt. Pooni asked him as to why he was putting up ‘dola’ in the field. PW 4 Ganpat has stated in his statement dated 22. 8. 97 that about eight months ago, while he was at his house, Smt. Pooni had gone to our field to oust he-buffalo. Mohanlal was pushing away ‘sarson’ and raising a ‘dola’ in our field. Smt. Pooni asked him as to why he was putting up ‘dola’ in the field. Then Mohanlal told her to run away. By hearing the voice of Mohanlal, Ramprasad, Harikishan, Ramniwas, Ramjilal, Sheopyari and Prem had come to the place of incident. When Smt. Pooni cam to our room, I was at home and not in the field. Mohanlal, Ramjilal and Ramdayal Followed her. They broke open the door and entered the house. Mohanlal gave a Gandasi blow on the head of Pooni, Ramjilal inflicted injury with sickle (‘daantle’) on the head on Smt. Pooni. Mohanlal told that she should not be spared alive, then he gave blows on the head and back of Smt. Pooni. The witness says that he was given beating with lathi by Harikishan. He also stated that while Harikishan took him away from the room, Ramprasad gave a lathi blow on my shoulder. Apart from him, his son Raju, wife Mishri, and Jagmohan also received injuries at the hands of the accused persons. While the accused were giving us beating, there was none to save us. Our injuries were got examined by the Police from the Doctor. 9.23. During the cross-examination, this witness stated that it is incorrect to say that we do not take water from the hands of Smt. Pooni W/o. Harkesh and she had a separate pitcher as well as room and ‘Jhopari’. He further stated that it is also incorrect to say that they wanted to part away with Smt. Pooni W/o. Harkesh. It is not correct that Smt. Pooni often visits the accused and speaks to them, so we are not happy with her. It is wrong to say that Harkesh remains separately from Smt. Pooni, right from his marriage. Equally, it is incorrect that we have not given Harkesh any share from the property, so he leaves to Delhi for earning his livelihood. This witness was cross-examined at length as he is the person who can assist in forming a chain of truthfulness. 10.24. Equally, it is incorrect that we have not given Harkesh any share from the property, so he leaves to Delhi for earning his livelihood. This witness was cross-examined at length as he is the person who can assist in forming a chain of truthfulness. 10.24. PW 5 Ramheta had adopted negative attitude while giving the statement, so he was declared hostile witness on the application of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. 125. PW 6 Hajarilal has stated in his statement dated 28.97 that Ramdayal and Jagmohan are known to him. Lathi was not recovered by the police in his presence. The police made him to sign on the blank papers. On the application of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, this witness was also declared hostile. 126. PW 7 Gangadhar also adopted negative attitude while giving his statement, so, on the application of the A.P.P., he was declared hostile witness. .27. PW 8 Smt. Mishri W/o. Ganpat has stated in her statement dated 10.12.97 that about 11 months ago, in the evening, Smt. Pooni had gone to the field for ousting he-buffalo (‘pada’)Mohanlal was raising ‘dola’ in sarson filed. Smt. Pooni asked Mohanlal not do do so. Mohanlal told Pooni to go away, otherwise she would .done to death. Pooni came to our house by running and revealed the incident. She also stated that the accused-persons ware coming to our house to kill all of us. Thereafter, Mohanlal, Ramniwas, Ramprasad, Ramdayal, Harikishan, Sheopyari and Prem cam to the house of the complainant-party. Ramjilal had a sickle (‘dantli’) in his hand, Mohanlal had a kuihari, while Ramdayal had a Kharwari, the remaining had lathis in their hands. The accused broke open the door. On making enquiry about Pooni, Ramjilal told that Pooni is in the room. They broke open the door of the room and took Pooni out of the room. Ramdayal gave a” Kharwari blow on the ear, while Mohanlal gave a Kuihari blow on her ear and ramjilal gave beating on her head by sickle (‘dantli’). They also injured us by giving blow with lathi. Her statement is almost on the same lines as of the statement of PW 3 Rajesh. 128. PW 9 Harkesh, who is husband of deceased Smt. Pooni, has stated in his statement dated 26.2.98 that at the time of the incident, he was residing in Delhi. They also injured us by giving blow with lathi. Her statement is almost on the same lines as of the statement of PW 3 Rajesh. 128. PW 9 Harkesh, who is husband of deceased Smt. Pooni, has stated in his statement dated 26.2.98 that at the time of the incident, he was residing in Delhi. He was informed byjagmohan about the dispute as well as death of his wife Smt. Pooni. He has denied the suggestion of forming of Panchayat. Apart from that, he stated that Pooni has not done to death by our family members. Rather has stated that Pooni was residing with our family members in our house. There was no separate room or partition for her in our house. She was living with us. Then told that Pooni used to cook food in ‘Chhapra’. His statement is of no assistance or help to the prosecution case. 129. PW 10 Gangabishan has stated that the police prepared recovery memos of Lathi, Kudali and sickle (‘dantla’) as well as Panchnama of the dead body of Smt. Pooni in his presence vide Exs.P 13, 14, 15 and 16 and these memos bear his signatures also. He also identified the dead body of Smt. Pooni. 130. PW 11 Dr. Omprakash Gupta has stated in his statement that on 20.12.96, he was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Lalsot, District Dausa. On that day, he conducted the Post Mortem Examination of Smt. Pooni. The following injuries were found on the deceased: 1 Fracture on left temporal bone beneath the left year. .2. Incised wound measuring 8 x 1/2” and scalp deep on left parietal and temporal area with suppression of left ear vertically into half , extending from left ear elbow to 1 “left lateral to mid line. .3. Incised wound 1 x 1/2” x muscle deep, left angle of mandible. .4. Incised wound 2.5 x 1/4” x muscle deep, left side of neck over posterior board of aestrono plido mastoid muscle 2 cm below left mastoid process. 5. Incise injury 4x 1/2” muscle deep on left parietal region 1” posterior to injury No. 2. 6. Swelling all around left over 1/3rd humorous with fracture. 7. Incised injury 2 x 1/2” x muscle deep 1” above mastrdid process behind left ear. 8. Incised injury for head horizontally measuring 2.5 x 1/2” x muscle deep. 9. 5. Incise injury 4x 1/2” muscle deep on left parietal region 1” posterior to injury No. 2. 6. Swelling all around left over 1/3rd humorous with fracture. 7. Incised injury 2 x 1/2” x muscle deep 1” above mastrdid process behind left ear. 8. Incised injury for head horizontally measuring 2.5 x 1/2” x muscle deep. 9. Aoratorically injury mark 3 x 1/2” muscle deep.” .31. On internal examination of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Pooni, the following injuries were found on her person : 1. Brain membranes turned below left temporal bone. 2. Brain & Spinal cord, collected blood was tound on left temporal area.” 2.32. Injuries No. 2,4,5,7,8, and 9 were simple in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Post Mortem Report Ex.P3 1 was prepared by him and it bears his signatures at A to B and C to D. 3.33. In cross-examination, he stated that all the injuries on the dead body of the deceased were clear-cut, so there was no need of X-ray. These injuries could have been caused by any sharp-edged weapon, like Barchha, sword etc. The aforesaid injuries could have been caused by ‘dantli’ or any other weapon also. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were received by the deceased Smt. Pooni, after she fell down. The injuries could have been caused while the deceased was lying on the left side. 4.34. Thestatement of PW 12 Smt. Basanti W/o. Jagmohan is on the same lines as that of PW 3 Rakesh and PW 4 Ganpat. She deposed that there was an old enmity between the complainant-party and the accused persons. The report was made by the accused-persons at the first hand, and, thereafter, the subsequent report was lodged by the complainant-party. 5.35. Ramniwas (P.W.13) has stated in his deposition that on 20.1.97, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police Station, Lalsot. At the first instance, the investigation was conducted by him. The accused persons were arrested by him vide Ex.P3 to Ex.P8. Recovery memos were also prepared by him. He further deposed that on the informations (Exs.P32 and 33) and at the instance of the accused Harikishan and Ramniwas respectively, lathis were recovered. At the first instance, the investigation was conducted by him. The accused persons were arrested by him vide Ex.P3 to Ex.P8. Recovery memos were also prepared by him. He further deposed that on the informations (Exs.P32 and 33) and at the instance of the accused Harikishan and Ramniwas respectively, lathis were recovered. He also stated that on the information (Ex.P.35) of accused Ramdayal, ‘Kudala’ was recovered, on the information (Ex.P36) of accused Mohanlal, ‘Kudali’ was recovered and as per information (Ex.P37) of accused Ramjilal, ‘dantli’ was recovered. He prepared the site plan of the incident vide Ex.P41. He also registered the cross-case, bearing No. 463/96. 36. Jagmohan (P.W.14), who lodged the FIR (Ex.P42) has deposed that on 112.96, while he and his family member were sitting in their house, suddenly Ramjilal SI Moolchand, Mohanlal Sb. Ramphool, Harikishan Sb. Ramphool, Ramprasad Sb. Ramphal, Ramadyal Sb. Gopal, Smt. Sheopyari Wbo. harikishan and Smt. Prem Wbo. Badhram, armed with lathis and Gandasi, entered the house and inflicted lathi blows and Gandasi blows to all the members of the family. They also inflicted a number of blows to Smt. Pooni Wbo. Harkesh, which resulted into her unconsciousness and she is lying on the death-bed. The accused also broke the doors of our house. There is a previous enmity between the complainant-party and the accused persons. Due to that enmity, they gave us beating. 1.37. PW 15 Kamlesh Sb. Ganpat, who is a student of Class IV and is aged 12 years, has stated that about 22-23 months ago, the incident had taken place in the evening. Smt. Pooni was ousting he-buffalo from sarson field, where Mohan Lal was raising ‘dola’, Smt. Pooni told him not to do so, Mohanlal became angry, he started to abuse her. Mohanlal also called some other persons, namely Ramjilal, Ramniwas, Ramprasad, Harikishan, Sheopyari and Prem. Ramjilal and Ramdayal enquired about Smt. Pooni. Mohanlal told that Smt. Pooni is in the room. Then, Ramjilal, Mohanlal and Ramdayal, broke open the door of the room, while Pooni was running towards ‘Tate’ (‘chhaper’) to save herself , accused Mohanlal gave blow with Kudali on the head of Smt. Pooni, Ramjilal also inflicted blow on the head of Smt. Pooni with ‘dantla’ and Ramdayal inflicted injury on the ear of Smt. Pooni with ‘kharwri’. He further deposed that the remaining accused gave beating to us. He further deposed that the remaining accused gave beating to us. Raju, Ganpat, Mishri, Basanti and Jagmohan also received injuries. This witness further stated there exists a room, having two doors in our house. There is a partition in the room. He also admitted the fact of two kitchens. This is surprising to note that this witness of tender age did not receive any injury on his person. 2.38. PW 17 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Medical Jurist, deposed that on 23.99, he conducted the medical examination of Ganpat. In all, Ganpat received 7 injuries. Injury No. 5 was simple in nature. For injuries No. 2,3,4,6 and 7, X-ray was taken. Injuries No. 1,2,3,4,6 and 7, were caused with “kund” weapon. Duration of the injuries was 24 house and Injury Report (Ex.P44) was signed by him. 3.39. Radiologist PW 18 Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal has stated that on 212.96, he performed the X-ray of left hand of Smt. Basanti Wbo. Jagmohan, Left hand of Rajesh Sb, Ganpat, and head & left hand of Smt. Mishri Wbo. Ganpat. X-ray films Ex.P 51-A, Ex.P 51-B and Ex.P 51-C were prepared by him. The Radiologist also stated that on 212.96, X-ray of left hand of Mohanlal Ramphool was also taken by him. Report (Ex.D 13) was prepared by him, in which he mentioned there was also taken by him. Report (Ex.D 13) was prepared by him, in which he mentioned there was a bone crack beneath ulna bone of Mohanlal. 4.40. SurajBhan (P.W.20) has stated in his statement dated 6.5.99 that on 112.96, he was posted as SHO, Lalsot, Jagmohan Sb. Ganpat gave written report (Ex.P 42) to him, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P 43) was recorded, site plan (Ex.P 13) and Panchayatnama (Ex.P 14) were prepared by him. He also seized the ‘loongri’ of deceased Smt, Pooni vide seizure memo (Ex.P. 15). he also stated that on 112.96, two cross-cases, bearing No. 463/96 (at 8.45 p.m.) was got registered by the accused-party and No. 464/96 (at 9.30 p.m.), was got registered by the complainant party. In the incident, Smt. Pooni had received injures with sharp edged weapon. 5.41. Therewitnesses-DW 1 Bachchu, DW2 Chiranjilal and DW 3 Parsadilal-were produced in defence. They have given just contrary version to the prosecution witnesses. 6.42. DW 1 Bachu has stated that the dispute had taken at the ‘dol’ of Mohanlal. In the incident, Smt. Pooni had received injures with sharp edged weapon. 5.41. Therewitnesses-DW 1 Bachchu, DW2 Chiranjilal and DW 3 Parsadilal-were produced in defence. They have given just contrary version to the prosecution witnesses. 6.42. DW 1 Bachu has stated that the dispute had taken at the ‘dol’ of Mohanlal. A ‘mar-peet’ had taken place in the field of Mohanlal, in which Ramjilal, Mohanlal, Mangli and Geeta had received injuries. On hearing the due and cry, he also arrived on the spot and he intervened. In the fight, mangal had become unconscious, so a tractor of Badri was called for and MohanlaI, Ramdayal, Ramjilal, Ramprasad, Mangli and Geeta were taken to the Lalsot hospital. On the next day, the accused persons were arrested in the hospital itself by the Police. After scuffle, the accused persons did not return to the village. He also stated that when Pooni had returned after ‘Gona’, the behavior of Ganpat, Jagmohan, Rajesh, Mishri, Basanti and Harikesh was not proper with her. Smt. Poona was ill-treated and often beaten by them. She was not provided even food. A partition was made in the room. She was not allowed even to touch the water. He deposed the at while Pooni died, there was one in the house, except Ganpat, Jagmohan, Rajesh, Mishri and Basanti. This witness further deposed that Ramdayal, Ramprasad, Prem, Mangli and Geeta had a good behaviour with Pooni. Even food was provided by them. He told that ‘mar-peet’ had taken place in the field. When he arrived the place of incident, ‘mar-peet’ had been over. In the free-fight, Ramdayal, Ramniwas etc. were injured. They were taken to Lalsot hospital in the tractor. He also stated that prior to the death of Pooni, he had seen Pooni and Ganpat etc. in the house, he heard the news of death in the morning of the next day only. 7.43. According to DW 2 Chiranjilal Sb. Shriram, Pooni is his brother’s daughter. She was ill-treated by Harkesh, Jagmohan, Ganpat and other women in her in-laws’ house, they were often beating to Smt. Pooni as they wanted to part away with her. They were not looking after her properly and they are harassing her. Even she was not served with the food, so I had sent a gunny bag of wheat for her. She was ill-treated by Harkesh, Jagmohan, Ganpat and other women in her in-laws’ house, they were often beating to Smt. Pooni as they wanted to part away with her. They were not looking after her properly and they are harassing her. Even she was not served with the food, so I had sent a gunny bag of wheat for her. He also stated that Smt. Pooni was treated affectionately by the accused Mohanlal, Ramdayal etc. whereas Ganpat and jagmohan etc. were used to quarrel with her and often beat her, as they wanted to part away with from her. In cross-examination, he stated that whenever Smt. Pooni was coming to our house, she was revealing the ill-treatment by her in-laws’ side. A panchayat was also called for. Her in-laws’ were reprimanded and were asked to behave with her properly. 1.44. DW 3 Prasadilal has deposed that Ramdayal, Mohanlal, Ganpat, Jagmohan, Rajesh, Mishri and Basanti are known to him. The free-fight had taken place in the field of Ramdayal Mohanlal etc., where Jagmohan, Ganpat, Rajesh and Mishri were also present. Mangali has received a serious injury. Pooni was not involved in this dispute. Then they brought a tractor and Mohanlal, Magli and Ramdayal etc. were taken to the Lalsot hospital. When they left for hospital, Pooni was alive. According to this witness, Ramdayal, Mohanlal, Ramprasad, Ramjilal, Ramniwas, Harikishan, Prem and Sheopyari, after leaving for Lalsot hospital for treatment, has not returned to the village and on the next day, they were arrested in the hospital itself This witness further stated that when Ramdayal, Mohanlal etc. had not visited the residence of Pooni, then were does the question of killing Pooni by them arise ? In fact, Smt. Pooni appears to have been done to death by her own in-laws’ in their own house, as right from the beginning, when she had come after ‘Gona’, they were ill-treating and misbehaving with her. Apart from that, they had decided to part away from her. Therefore, taking a chance of quarrel, they themselves have killed her, under the pretext that she was done to death by the accused-persons. 2.45. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and scanned and evaluated the material available on record. The statements of all the prosecution as well as defence witnesses have been examined minutely by us. 3.46. Therefore, taking a chance of quarrel, they themselves have killed her, under the pretext that she was done to death by the accused-persons. 2.45. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and scanned and evaluated the material available on record. The statements of all the prosecution as well as defence witnesses have been examined minutely by us. 3.46. It is well settled that while assessing and evaluating the testimony of eye witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles namely whether in the circumstances of the case it was possible for the eye witness 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 the cross-examining and what impression is created by his evidence in the contest of the case. 4.47. Learned Counsel for the appellants elaborately argued the matter before us and took us through the Judgment of the trial Court and also through the relevant documents and deposition. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment by referring to the findings given by the trial Court and he also submitted that those findings are based on appreciation of facts and they do not call for any interference. 5.48. A Criminal trial is not like a fairy tale, said the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he 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 yardistic of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the 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 exfacie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 49. Every case in the 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 exfacie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 49. Having considered the evidence of the prosecution from the point of view of trustworthiness, we find that is it replete wit inherent improbabilities and meaningful embellishments. The entire evidence of Jagmohan, Ganpat, Ramniwas and Smt. Basanti, as we discussed hereinabove, sounds highly improbable and we find ourselves unable to accept it. The prosecution appears to have suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version. The defence in our view has succeeded in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. It is evident from the statement of DW 2 Chiranjilal that Smt. Pooni was being ill-treated, humiliated and tortured by her in- laws. Not only that, even food was not privided by them. Ultimately, they had decided to do her away from their house and, by taking the benefit of ‘maar-peet’, they have killed her. It is also evident from his statement that there was no previous enmity of Smt. Pooni with the accused-persons. It is also beyond imagination that why serious injuries were inflicted on Smt. Pooni, why others were spared and why the accused persons intended to kill Smt. Pooni only. Apart from that, why has dead- body of Smt. Pooni was wrapped in the ‘razai, whey she was not taken to the hospital immediately. In fact, Smt. Pooni was treated affectionately by the accused Mohanlal and Ramdayal etc. Why they would kill her. They had good relations with Smt. Pooni. These all facts and circumstances show that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned trial Judge appears to have overlooked the improbabilities and meaninful embellishments discussed by us which were extremely damaging to the prosecution case. The evidence led by the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded sufficient to find the conviction of the appellants Ramdayal, Mohan Lal and Ramji Lal for the murder of the deceased Smt. Pooni. The appellants must, therefore, be acquitted of the offences charged against them. 49. The evidence led by the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded sufficient to find the conviction of the appellants Ramdayal, Mohan Lal and Ramji Lal for the murder of the deceased Smt. Pooni. The appellants must, therefore, be acquitted of the offences charged against them. 49. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants Ram Dayal, Mohan Lai and Ramji Lal under Sections 302/34 and 458, IPC and acquit them of the said charges. The appellants who are in Jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.