JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated March 15, 2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar whereby he convicted accused-appellants Lallu @ Naresh, Booban, Jagraj, Kiran, Ramphal and Jeet Ram under Sections 147,148,506,302 and 302/149 and sentenced under Section 302 or Section 302/149, IPC, to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years imprisonment; under Sections 147 and 148 IPC, to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years imprisonment; and under Section 506, IPC, two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on August 5,1998, one Veer Singh s/o Sunheri lodged a written report with the Police Station, Tapukara, District Alwar to the effect that there was dispute between his cousin brother Mehar Chand and Ramphal, Baban and Jograj etc. regarding measurement of land. They had also threatened Mehar Chand to kill him. It was further stated in the report that on August 5, 1998, as usual, after taking his meal, Mehar Chand was sleeping in front of his house. When he got up at 5 o'clock in the morning, he found that Mehar Chand was lying dead on the cot. His throat was chopped off and blood was oozing. The complainant had a suspicion that Mehar Chand was done to death by Ramphal, Booban, Jograj, Jeet Ram and Kiran Gujras. It was also stated in the report that the dead body of Mehar Chand was lying on the scene of occurrence. Necessary action may be taken. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, First Information Report No. 191/98, under Sections 302 and 147 IPC, was registered at the Tapukara Police Station, District Alwar and the investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, an inquest report of the dead-body was prepared autopsy was performed, site was inspected, control and blood smeared soils were seized and sealed, a diary and clothes of the deceased were also seized and sealed. Photographs of the dead body were taken. 4. During the course of investigation, an inquest report of the dead-body was prepared autopsy was performed, site was inspected, control and blood smeared soils were seized and sealed, a diary and clothes of the deceased were also seized and sealed. Photographs of the dead body were taken. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused Kiran, Jeet Ram, Jograj, Lallu, Ramphal and Booban. He also sent the seized articles to the FSL vide Ex.P.27. 5. On completion of investigation, the Police filed a challan under Sections 302, 147,148,149 and 506 IPC, against the accused Lallu @ Naresh, Ramphal, Booban, Jograj, Jeet Ram and Kiran in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, Tizara (Alwar). Since it was a sessions case, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarh Bas, for trial. The charges were framed under Sections 147,148,149,302 and 506, IPC, against the accused persons. They denied the charges. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses (PW1 to PW17) and produced 27 documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P27). In defence, the accused produced no evidence. However, during the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses (Ex. D1 to Ex.D9) were recorded by the Police. The explanations of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded by the trial Court. They denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated. 7. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide its judgment dated March 15,2001, as mentioned above. 8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated March 15, 2001, all the accused-appellants, namely, Lallu @ Naresh, Ramphal, Booban, Jograj, Jeet Ram and Kiran have preferred the instant appeals. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the findings of the trial court ore against the facts and material on record. It is further contended that the learned trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the proper appreciation of prosecution witnesses in its right perspective. It is also contended that the trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the defence version in its right perspective. It is further contended that the learned trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the proper appreciation of prosecution witnesses in its right perspective. It is also contended that the trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the defence version in its right perspective. According to the learned counsel, this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellants. 10. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the cases of Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 372 , , State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426 , Laxman & Others v. The State of Maharashtra, 1974 Cr.L.R.(SC) 36 , Keshav Gangaram Navge v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 (1) SCC 513 and Bhagirath v. State of M.P., (1976) 1 SCC 20 and submitted that it is a duty cast on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. In case, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses stands at zero, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons. The Court thus, has to scrutinise its evidence with a little bit of caution and scrutiny so as to judge its veracity. Admittedly, most of the witnesses are relations of the deceased. As such, they fall within the category of interested witnesses. It is not that the evidence ought to discredited by reason of the witness being simply an interested witness, but, in that event, the Court will be rather strict in its scrutiny as to be acceptability of such an evidence. The prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and vehemently contended that it is a fool proof case from the point of view of prosecution testimony, as well as medical evidence which led to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, in a gruesome murder, like the present one, the accused appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court should be upheld. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that all the prosecution witnesses are credit worthy witnesses. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court should be upheld. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that all the prosecution witnesses are credit worthy witnesses. During the cross-examination, their testimony remained unshaken. Apart from that, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Agrawal (PW13), who conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Mehar Chand, has opined that the cause of death was cardio respiration arrest and due to multiple cut injuries. He also opined that the injuries were caused by weapon like Farsi on the throat of the deceased, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The duration of the injuries was 6 to 12 hours. He stated that the post-mortem report Ex.P.11 was prepared by him and he put his signatures on it. He further stated that on examining the injuries of the deceased, it cannot be said that injuries were caused by a pointed sharp Bhalla and lathi. Thereafter, he stated that on perusing the nature of the injuries, it can be said that different types of weapons were used. Lastly, he stated that if the veins of the neck are cut off, the pressure of the blood oozing from the neck goes to the range of ten to 15ft. 13. PW4 Veer Singh, who lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P1), has deposed that Mehar Chand is his cousin in relation. On 5th August, at 12 hours in the night, Mehar Chand was sleeping in front of his house on the cot. At 12 o'clock, he heard the voice that Mehar Chand has been cut off. When he alongwith Bharat, Saiyaram, Bodan and Badan reached the scene of the incident, they saw accused Ramphal, Jeetu, Buban, Jograj, Kiran and Naresh running away from the scene of occurrence. They saw them in the moon-lit night. He also deposed that there was dispute between the deceased and the accused persons regarding measurement of the land. Apart from that, Mehar Chand was also earlier threatened by them that if he participates in the measurement proceedings of the land in question, he would be killed. PW1 Banwarilal and PW2 Radheyshyam, Kanoongo and Patwari respectively, have testified that on the orders from the Tehsildar, they had gone to village Indore regarding measurement of the land, but there was a dispute between the parties, so they did not commence the measurement proceedings. 14. PW1 Banwarilal and PW2 Radheyshyam, Kanoongo and Patwari respectively, have testified that on the orders from the Tehsildar, they had gone to village Indore regarding measurement of the land, but there was a dispute between the parties, so they did not commence the measurement proceedings. 14. PW5 Bharat Singh has deposed that he had taken the land which was possessed by Ramphal. He told Ramphal to hand him over the land. Ramphal told him to get the land measured, so, in order to get the land in dispute measured, he approached the Tehsildar. Patwari and Kanoongo on the orders of the Tehsildar, have come to take measurement of the land in dispute. At that time, Ramphal, Jograj and Buban had come with lathi and they did not allow to take the measurement of the land. They also threatened Mehar Chand and told him not to come with these persons; the land would be retained either by them or by Bharat Singh. Mehar Chand then replied that whenever they want, they can crush him. Thereafter, the accused got stay with regard to measurement of the land. He also deposed that the family of deceased Mehar Chand was residing at Delhi. 15. PW6 Sahi Ram @ Saiya has deposed that in the night of the occurrence, Mehar Chand was sleeping in front of the house of Chhaju. Chander was also sleeping near the cot of Mehar Chand. He heard the voice of Suresh and Veero that Mehar Chand has been cut up. On hearing their voice, he ran towards the house of Chhaju, where Mehar Chand was lying cut off. He further deposed that he saw Ramphal, Jeetu, Jograj, Kiran and Naresh fleeing from the scene of the occurrence. They were running towards North side. They had a lathi, Ballabh, Farsi and Tanchia in their hands. In cross-examination, he stated that it is wrong to say that he saw the back portion of the accused persons. He stated that he also revealed to the police that he had seen the accused running away from the scene of the occurrence. 16. PW7 Chander, who was sleeping near Mehar Chand, on the night of the occurrence, has deposed after keeping a lathi beneath his pillow, he had gone to sleep. It was a moon-lit night. He stated that he also revealed to the police that he had seen the accused running away from the scene of the occurrence. 16. PW7 Chander, who was sleeping near Mehar Chand, on the night of the occurrence, has deposed after keeping a lathi beneath his pillow, he had gone to sleep. It was a moon-lit night. In the night, when his lathi was moved by someone, he suddenly got up and found that Ramphal, Buban, Jograj, Jeetu, Kiran and Naresh were standing around the cot of Mehar Chand. They had Ballam, Tanchia and Farsi in their hands. The witness spoke that what is going to happen, on this Ramphal asked him to keep mum. Smt. Veero w/o Chhaju was sleeping on the roof. Smt, Suresh w/o Shyam was also sleeping on the roof of her house. They cried, who is killing 'Boodha' (the old man). The blood was lying around the cot of Mehar Chand. On hearing their cries, other persons of the village, including Veer Singh had arrived at the scene of the occurrence. The 'dhoti' of Mehar Chand was smeared with blood. He was also wearing a vest ('baniyan'). The other persons had seen the accused from their back side. 17. PW8 Smt. Suresh has deposed that in the night of 5th August, 1998, at about 1-2.00 a.m., Mehar Chand was cut off by the accused Kiran, Naresh, Buban, Jeetu and Jograj. The incident had taken place in front the house of Chhaju. She alongwith her mother-in-law were sleeping on the roof of her house. In the night, she heard the voice of 'hare-hare'. On hearing this voice, she woke up and saw that the accused were cutting off Mehar Chand. She cried. On hearing her cries, Saiya, Bodan, Lallu and Veeru had arrived at the scene of the occurrence. The accused had Farsi, Ballam, Lathi and Tanchia in their hands. She further stated that accused Budan had a Tanchia, Naresh had a lathi, Jograj had a Ballam, Jeetu had a Farsi, and Kiran & Ramphal had lathis in their hands. She expressed her inability explain as to who inflicted how much blows on Mehar Chand - deceased. She stated in the cross-examination that Veeru Sarpanch was sent for lodging a report. 18. PW9 Badan Singh, who is a Military man, has deposed that he had come to the village on leave for five days. She expressed her inability explain as to who inflicted how much blows on Mehar Chand - deceased. She stated in the cross-examination that Veeru Sarpanch was sent for lodging a report. 18. PW9 Badan Singh, who is a Military man, has deposed that he had come to the village on leave for five days. Mehar Chand had come to him at around 9-9.30 p.m. in the night. At that time, he was sitting in the house of his brother-Munshi. Thereafter, Mehar Chand had gone from the house. In the night, he heard the cries. When he went to the scene of the occurrence, he found that Mehar Chand was cut up and 5-6 ladies and gents were standing around his cot. They revealed to him that Mehar Chand has been done to death by Jograj, Jeetu, Kiran, Naresh and Buban. 19. PW10 Mahendra is the son of the deceased. He deposed that he was working at Dairy in Delhi. He received a telephonic message from Bharat that his father Mehar Chand has been killed by Ramphal, Buban, Jograj, Jeetu, Kiran and Naresh. When he came to the village, he saw that the dead body of his father was lying cut up in front of the house of Chajju. He also deposed that his father Mehar Chand was Up-Sarpanch. 20. PW11 Smt. Veero has deposed that on the night of the occurrence, she was sleeping with her daughter-in-law Smt. Suresh on the roof of her house. Mehar Chand was sleeping in the 'Bankhal. At around 1 o'clock in the night, she heard the voice of the old man, she awakened Smt. Suresh. They both saw that the accused Ramphal, Jeetu, Kiran, Naresh, Booban and Jograj were standing around the cot of Mehar Chand. They had lathi, Ballam, Farsi and sabbal in their hands. They had chopped off the neck of Mehar Chand. When they both cried, the accused Buban, Jograj, Ramphal, Jeetu, Kiran and Naresh ran away. At that time, other villagers, Veer Singh and Bharat Singh had also arrived on the scene of the occurrence. She further deposed that the accused Buban had a Ballam, Jograj had a Farsi, Jeetu had a Farsi, Naresh had a Tanchia and Ramphal & Kiran had lathis in their hands. She also deposed that she saw the accused around the cot of Mehar Chand. But she did not see them killing him (Mehar Chand). She further deposed that the accused Buban had a Ballam, Jograj had a Farsi, Jeetu had a Farsi, Naresh had a Tanchia and Ramphal & Kiran had lathis in their hands. She also deposed that she saw the accused around the cot of Mehar Chand. But she did not see them killing him (Mehar Chand). Mehar Chand was wearing a vest ('baniyan') and 'dhoti' on his person. 21. Similarly, PW12 Bodan Lal had deposed that his house is situated behind the house of Chhaju. He heard the voice of Mehar Chand. Thereafter, Suresh and Veero called me that Mehar Chand has been cut up. He came running and saw that Ramphal, Buban, Jograj, Jeetu, Kiran and Naresh etc. were running towards the house. They had Tanchia, Ballam and Lathis in their hands. Thereafter, he saw that the neck of Mehar Chand has been chopped off. There were four injuries on his neck. At that time, Saiya, Veer Singh, Bharat Singh and other villagers had also collected there. He does not know what was the enmity between them. Prior to that, he did not see any such incident. In the cross-examination, he stated that Veer Singh and Bharat etc. had a torch, therefore, they saw from torch that the neck of the deceased has been chopped off and there was no cloth on his dead body and it was lying naked. 22. PW17 Shyam Singh, SHO, Police Station, Tapukara has deposed that on 6th August, 1998, he was posted as SHO of the aforesaid Police Station. Veer Singh submitted a written report before him, on the basis of which he registered the FIR. He reached the scene of the occurrence, prepared site plan, inquest report and seized and sealed control and blood smeared soil. He also got conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Mehar Chand by the Doctor and arrested the accused. He also sent the seized and sealed articles to the FSL, Jaipur for examination. 23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned and scrutinised the evidence available on record. 24. It is pertinent to mention here that the weapons alleged to have been used, while committing the aforesaid offence, have not been recovered by the prosecution. Apart from that, there is discrepancy in the version of the FIR as well as the statements deposed by the prosecution witnesses. 24. It is pertinent to mention here that the weapons alleged to have been used, while committing the aforesaid offence, have not been recovered by the prosecution. Apart from that, there is discrepancy in the version of the FIR as well as the statements deposed by the prosecution witnesses. In the FIR, only doubt has been created by the informant Veer Singh by saying that it is suspected that the murder has been committed by the accused Ramphal, Buvan, Jograj, Jeet Ram, Kiran and Naresh Gujran. So, the conviction cannot be based on the basis of the doubt. Further, in the FIR, deceased Mehar Chand has been shown as sleeping in front of his bungalow, whereas in the site-plan (Ex.P.3) dated 6.8.1998 as well as fard surat (Ex.P5) dated 6.8.1998 of deceased Mehar Chand, prepared by the Police, the dead body of the deceased has been shown as lying in front of the house of Chhaju. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the place of death of the deceased is doubtful. 25. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW8 Smt. Suresh has stated that she has revealed the entire story to Veeru as to who inflicted blows to Mehar Chand and what weapons the accused were possessing, but that fact has not been corroborated in the statement of Veer Sigh (PW3) who lodged the FIR. PW3 Veer Singh has stated in the report that he had suspicion that the murder of Mehar Chand has been committed by Ramphal, Booban, Jograj, Jeet Ram and Kiran Gujars. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused who inflicted the-injury, whereas Smt. Suresh (PW8) says that she has revealed the entire incident to Veeru, prior to lodging the FIR. 26. FIR is a substantial piece of evidence in this matter, narrating certain facts regarding the offence committed by the accused appellants on the basis of doubt, but no specific role has been assigned in the FIR to any of the accused persons. Only doubt has been created. While examining the further evidence on record, we find that the version of the FIR has not been corroborated by any other evidence on record. Smt.Suresh and Smt.Veero have subsequently improved their versions and have unsuccessfully tried to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. There is serious discrepancy in their statements. Only doubt has been created. While examining the further evidence on record, we find that the version of the FIR has not been corroborated by any other evidence on record. Smt.Suresh and Smt.Veero have subsequently improved their versions and have unsuccessfully tried to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. There is serious discrepancy in their statements. There was a dispute between Ramphal and Bharat regarding measurement of the land and the deceased, being an Up-Sarpanch, was supporting Bharat, so, in this way, there were no inimical relations between the deceased and the accused appellants which may lead them to commit his murder. 27. It may be mentioned here that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused-appellants to connect them with the death of the deceased - Mehar Chand. In addition to that, there are contradictions between the veracity of the witnesses and truthfulness of the incidence. The prosecution has also not produced the result of the Forensic Science Laboratory Examination Report. This Court is very much aware that in criminal cases, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and if there is any doubt, the benefit must go to the accused. Thus, the complete chain of evidence to connect the accused with the crime is missing. 28. It may also be mentioned here that in the instant case, the dispute with regard to measurement of the land was between Bharat and Ramphal and the deceased Mehar Chand has nothing to do with that. Thus, the accused have no motive to commit the murder of deceased Mehar Chand. The motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to do a crime. Therefore, motive behind the crime is also a relevant factor. The evidence of motive is material and significant in criminal cases, which is missing in the instant case. 29. For these reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment dated March 15,2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar. We acquit the appellants Lallu @ Naresh, Ramphal, Booban, Jograj, Jeet Ram and Kiran of the charges under Sections 147,148,506,302 and 302/149 IPC. 30. The appellants Lallu @ Naresh, Kiran and Ramphal are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. 31. We acquit the appellants Lallu @ Naresh, Ramphal, Booban, Jograj, Jeet Ram and Kiran of the charges under Sections 147,148,506,302 and 302/149 IPC. 30. The appellants Lallu @ Naresh, Kiran and Ramphal are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. 31. The appellants Jograj, Booban and Jeet Ram, who are in Jail, shall be set at liberty, if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******