Judgment S.K. Sharma, J.-This appeal owes its origin in the Judgment dated December 18, 2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur rendered in Sessions Case No. 31/1998, whereby the appellants Badruddin and Mst. Tofan (hereinafter described as ‘accused’) have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 323 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment fifteen days. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is founded on the parcha bayan (Ex.P-20) of Alladin (PW. 23), alleged to have been recorded on August 8, 1998 by one Bane Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Narena District Jaipur. On the basis of said parcha bayan the FIR (Ex.P-21) came to be registered at 3.15 am on August 9, 1998 by Police Station Narena against as many as 25 persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 and 307 IPC and investigation commenced. It appears that Rafiq, who had sustained injuries alongwith informant Alladin, succumbed to the injuries on August 13, 1998 and the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. Autopsy on the dead body of Rafiq was performed. Injuries sustained by informant Alladin got examined vide injury report (Ex.P-17). Statements of witnesses under Section 161 were recorded and the accused were arrested. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed only against the present accused and other 23 persons, named in the parcha bayan were exonerated by the Investigating Officer. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur. Charges under Sections 447, 302 alternatively 302/34, 307 alternatively 307/34 and 323 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence and two witnesses in defence were examined. The version of defence was that the incident occurred between Sharif and Rafiq and they were not present at the time of occurrence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. 3. Dr. M.D. Qureshi (PW. The version of defence was that the incident occurred between Sharif and Rafiq and they were not present at the time of occurrence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. 3. Dr. M.D. Qureshi (PW. 26), who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Rafiq, stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante mortem in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-29) the deceased Rafiq sustained following injuries:- “1. Multiple Abrasion-blood hand scars. 1x1cm Rt. Elbow properly, ½ x 1/2cm Rt. lossle & ring finger, partially missing of nail of Rt. thumb-Abrasion ½ x 1 cm, 1 x ½ cm left leg, 4,1/3rd ankerly, ½ x ½ cm on left elbow. 2. Stitched wound 1 cm leg as Rt. Leg 1/3rd medially. 3. Stitched wound 1,1/2 cm left leg out aspect below knee. 4. Two parallel perum fair brown coloured. 7 x ½ cm on Rt. Scapular region-gap 1cm. Obliquely placed. 5. Two parallel bruise fair brown 3 x 1,1/2 cm-gap of 1 cm left scapular region obliquely. 6. Stitched wound 3cm long left occipital region. 7. 3 Abrasions-hard blood scars 2 x 2 cm on Rt. temporal region of scalp, 1 x ½ cm occipital region and 2,1/2 x 1 cm on mid parts occipital region. 8. Stitched wound 33 cm long remilunar on left tranto parieto temporal region on dorsum of scalp. Sule scalp, Volena luna over mid franto parietal of mid occipital, parietal region-missing of bone in area of 13 x 9 cm over left tranto parieto temporal region. Dura not stitched, jils todam present, Shuns shown looning of coronal survie as Rt. note. Brain shown contusion 1 x 1, ½ cm Rt. Temporal lale-contusion over part 3 x 1 cm with linear 3 x 2 x 1/2 cm left trents lobe, 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm left tranto parietal lube rumper aspect-Abrasion varentown, menluna shown subdural hand at places.” The cause of death was coma, lingerabs due to injury to brain. 4. The injuries sustained by informant Alladin were also examined and as per injury report (Ex.P-17) Alladin sustained following injuries:-“1. Stitched wound 4cm long present over left mid parietal region with reddish brown colour scar; 2. Stitched wound 3cm left occipital region with dry reddish brown scar; 3. 4. The injuries sustained by informant Alladin were also examined and as per injury report (Ex.P-17) Alladin sustained following injuries:-“1. Stitched wound 4cm long present over left mid parietal region with reddish brown colour scar; 2. Stitched wound 3cm left occipital region with dry reddish brown scar; 3. Two parallel bruise 6cm x ½ each with a gap of 1cm in between obliquely placed on Rt. Scapular region reddish brown in colour. 4. Two parallel Bruise 3x1/2cm with a gap of 1cm in between obliquely placed with diffuse swelling present.” .5. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, pointed out following salient features of the case which were left unnoticed at the trial:- .(i) In the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-20) time and place of recording was not mentioned; .(ii) Bane Singh, Head Constable, who recorded the Parcha Bayan, was not examined by the prosecution so as to establish as to at which place and what time he got recorded the parcha bayan; .(iii) TheFIR got registered after a great delay at 3.15 AM on August 9, 1998 and delay was got explained; .(iv) In the parcha bayan as many as 25 persons were named as assailants and two years old enmity with Bawarias was the cause of the incident; .(v) The prosecution has failed to explain as to on what basis 23 persons, who were named in the parcha bayan, were exonerated by the Investigating Officer; .(vi) After the incident when injured Alladin and Rafiq were taken to Primary Health Centre Narena they were in an unconscious state. Although Dr. S.P. Mathur (PW. 20) examined them and informed the police but no injury report was drawn and the injured were referred to SMS Hospital Jaipur. Even the injuries were not described in the refer slip; .(vii) Theinformant Alladin in his police statement (Ex.D-4) stated that accused Badruddin inflicted injury with lathi on the head of Rafiq, but at the trial he changed his statement and deposed that the accused Badruddin gave farsi-blow on the head of deceased; .(viii) Theinformant Alladin (PW. 23) in his cross examination stated that he regained his consciousness after five days of the incident in SMS Hospital Jaipur and had negotiations with his parents. The police recorded his statement after he regained consciousness; .(ix) Mukund Singh, Investigating Officer (PW. 23) in his cross examination stated that he regained his consciousness after five days of the incident in SMS Hospital Jaipur and had negotiations with his parents. The police recorded his statement after he regained consciousness; .(ix) Mukund Singh, Investigating Officer (PW. 25) in his deposition admitted that cross FIR in regard to the said incident was also registered; .(x) Inthe explanation under Section 313 CrPC the accused stated that they were not present at the time of occurrence and the incident had occurred between Sharif and Rafiq; .(xi) Chand Mohd. (DW. 1) and Kamruddin (DW. 2) deposed that after the cattles entered in the field, Rafiq and Sharif inflicted injuries on the person of each other and the accused were not present at that time. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and urged that the infirmities shown on behalf of the accused were not material and did not demolish substratum of the case. Since, Alladin himself had sustained injuries, there was no reason to disbelieve him. 7. Having closely scrutinised the material on record, we find that initially the allegations were levelled against as many as 25 persons. Although the present accused were named in the parcha bayan no specific role was assigned to them. It also appears that after the incident the injured Alladin and Rafiq were removed to Primary Health Centre Narena, where the injuries got stiched and the injured were referred to SMS Hospital Jaipur. We also find from the testimony of Dr. S.P. Mathur (PW . 20) that no sooner did the injured arrive, he informed the police. At that time the injured were unconscious. He then stitched their wounds and referred them to SMS Hospital Jaipur. Neither their injury reports got drawn nor the injuries were described in the refer slip. 8. From the material on record we do not find anything that could show as to why 23 persons, who were named in the parcha bayan, were not charge-sheeted. Mukund Singh, Investigating Officer (PW . 25) failed to explain as to why he got exonerated other 23 assailants named in the FIR. He however admitted that cross case was registered by him. In view of deposition of Alladin that he regained consciousness after five days of the incident, the fact of recording of Parcha Bayan of Alladin on August 8, 1998 by Bane Singh, Head Constable, shrouded in mystery. He however admitted that cross case was registered by him. In view of deposition of Alladin that he regained consciousness after five days of the incident, the fact of recording of Parcha Bayan of Alladin on August 8, 1998 by Bane Singh, Head Constable, shrouded in mystery. Non-examination of Bane Singh further caused dent in the prosecution case. The question remained unanswered as to in what manner an unconscious person could narrate the incident. Bane Singh was the only person who could solve this mystery. The prosecution also failed to establish the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. Dr. S.P. Mathur without drawing the injury report, stitched the wounds. At the trial the version in regard to weapon of offence allegedly used by the accused, was changed. In our opinion, subsequent conduct of witness Alladin and various statements made by him during investigation and trial creates doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 9. In Chhita vs. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 639 subsequent conduct of the witness and various statements made by injured witness during investigation and trial were taken into consideration and it was indicated that the subsequent conduct of the sole eye witness and various statements made by him during investigation and trial render the entire prosecution story suspect. 10. In Sudhir vs. State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 515 several infirmities in the prosecution evidence were taken into consideration and the benefit of doubt was given to the accused. 11. In the case on hand learned trial Judge did not properly take into consideration the material on record. The testimony of informant Alladin and Dr. S.P. Mathur was not properly considered. In our opinion the infirmities noticed by us are fatal to the prosecution case and render the prosecution story suspect. 12. For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment dated December 18, 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake District Jaipur. We acquit the accused Badruddin and Mst. Tofan of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 323 IPC. The accused who are in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.