Judgment S.K. Sharma, J.-The appellants six in number alongwith nine other accused persons were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror, District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 17/1996. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated October 27, 1999 only found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under:- Kailash, Balbir, Sona, Sukh Ram, Ami Lal @ Ami Chand and Lahari: Under Section 302/149, IPC: Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for one Month. Under Section 148, IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for fifteen days. Under Section 341, IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 323/149, IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that a written report was submitted by the informant Ladu Ram (PW. 4) at Police Station Basnsur on February 21, 1996 at 12.30 a.m. with the averments that on February 20, 1996 around 8.00 p.m. when the informant alongwith Matadeen (now deceased) were proceeding towards their well, fifteen accused persons including the appellants made assault on them. Appellant Kailash inflicted axe-blow from the blunt side on the legs of Matadeen, another blow was given by the appellant Balbir on the legs of Matadeen with the blunt side of Pharsi as a result of which Matadeen fell down, then all the accused persons showered lathi blows on the person of Matadeen. Appellants Kailash and Balbir strangulated Matadeen and Balbir and Siri Ram carried his dead body on their back and locked the dead body in the house of Ami Chand. The villagers demanded the dead body but the accused declined to hand over the dead body. On the basis of the said report case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341 and 323, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Shiv Ram ASI (PW. 22) forthwith reached the house of Ami Chand. Seeing Shiv Ram there, the accused fled away. Shiv Ram then searched the key, unlocked the room and got the dead body recovered. Post Mortem on the dead body was conducted. Accused were arrested. Necessary memos were drawn and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. Shiv Ram ASI (PW. 22) forthwith reached the house of Ami Chand. Seeing Shiv Ram there, the accused fled away. Shiv Ram then searched the key, unlocked the room and got the dead body recovered. Post Mortem on the dead body was conducted. Accused were arrested. Necessary memos were drawn and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 323 and 341, IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 22 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313, CrPC, the accused claimed innoncence and stated that Matadeen and Pooran entered upon the house of Ami Chand and made assault on Balbir. Appellant Kailash stated that on the day of incident he was not in village Dhakla as he had gone to attend the marriage of Radhey Shyam’s daughter at village Nangal Bhav Singh. Three witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge while acquitting nine co-accused persons convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. 3. We have heard the submissions advanced at the Bar and scanned the record. 4. Dr. Prashant Kumar (PW. 19), who performed autopsy on the dead body of Matadeen deposed that the death of Matadeen was homicidal and cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to liver. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-15) the deceased sustained following ante mortem injuries:- “(1) Three lacerated wound occipital region on scalp Rt. side size ½ cm x ½ cm. (2) Bruise 8 cm x 6 cm Rt. side of chest wall, anteriorly lower on 5, 6, 7, 8 rib and fracture of rib. (3) Bruise 4 cm x 3 cm Rt. side of cheek. (4) Bruise 6 cm x 4 cm at L1, L2 vertical region on back. (5) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x ½ cm middle 1/3 of Lt. leg anteriorly. (6) Lacerated wound 5, ½ cm x 2 cm x ½ cm middle 1/3 of Rt. leg anteriorly. 5. Having pondered over the submissions advanced at the Bar and on careful scrutinising the material on record we notice that the prosecution case is mainly founded on the testimony of informant Ladu (PW. 4), Pooran (PW. leg anteriorly. (6) Lacerated wound 5, ½ cm x 2 cm x ½ cm middle 1/3 of Rt. leg anteriorly. 5. Having pondered over the submissions advanced at the Bar and on careful scrutinising the material on record we notice that the prosecution case is mainly founded on the testimony of informant Ladu (PW. 4), Pooran (PW. 5) and Jai Ram (PW. 6). The evidence of these witnesses has been supported by the statements of Dr. Prashant Kumar (PW. 19) who performed the post mortem on the dead body and Shiv Ram, ASI (PW. 22) who got the dead body recovered from the house of Ami Chand. 6. Ladu (PW. 4), Pooran (PW. 5) and Jai am (PW. 6) in one voice deposed that it was moonlit night when the accused made assault and inflicted injuries on the person of Matadeen. According to these witnesses, accused Kailash and Balbir put their hands on the neck of Matadeen and squeezed it as a result of which Matadeen died. But from the medical evidence it does not appear that Matadeen died because of asphyxia. As per the post mortem the cause of death was injury to liver. It is also the version of Ladu, Pooran and Jai Ram that the dead body of Matadeen was picked up and carried by Balbir and Siri Ram on their back and they locked the dead body in the house of accused Ami Chand. 7. Shiv Ram ASI (PW. 22) in his deposition stated that it was a dark night when the incident occurred. When he reached at the house of Ami Chand, the accused after seeing him fled away. He then found the key under a stone slab and got the door of the room opened. Inside the room dead body of Matadeen was found. Shiv Ram drew two site plans. Ex. P-3 is the site plan of the place of incident and Ex. P-4 is the site plan of the room of Ami Chand from where the dead body was recovered. A look at the site plan (Ex. P-3) goes to show that at the place ‘X’ shown in the site plan, white head gear stained with dots of blood allegedly belonged to Matadeen, was lying. No blood any where was however seen. As per the details incorporated in stie plan (Ex. A look at the site plan (Ex. P-3) goes to show that at the place ‘X’ shown in the site plan, white head gear stained with dots of blood allegedly belonged to Matadeen, was lying. No blood any where was however seen. As per the details incorporated in stie plan (Ex. P-4) when the room was inspected in the torch light, dead body of Matadeen was found sitting adjacent to a cot but no blood was seen in the room. 8. Salient features of the case may be summarised thus:- .(i) According to Shiv Ram ASI (PW . 22) the incident occurred in the dark night whereas the eye-witnesses deposed that it was a moonlit night when the accused made assault on Matadeen. .(ii) As per the testimony of eye-witnesses, neck of Matadeen was in the clutches of accused Kailash and Balbir and Matadeen died as a result of strangulation, but this fact does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. According to post mortem report, injuries or marks of ligature were not found on the neck of deceased and cause of death was injury to liver. (iii) No drop of blood was seen at or near the place of incident. .(iv) Prosecution witnesses do not say that head gear of Matadeen did fall at the place of incident but Shiv Ram ASI got the headgear allegedly belonged to Matadeen, recovered from the place of incident. .(v) Dead body of Matadeen was found in a locked room belonging to accused Ami Chand and there was nobody in the house. .(vi) Shiv Ram ASI himself searched the key which was kept concealed under a stone slab, for unlocking the room and in the torch light the dead body of Matadeen was seen. (vii) No blood was found in the room. 9. Having analysed the prosecution evidence with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny we find it difficult to believe that after killing Matadeen the accused would have carried the dead body on their back and locked it in the house of accused Ami Chand. In our opinion no sane person would allow others to keep a dead body in his house, so as to create evidence against him. It is highly unlikely that a dead body would be carried away by the accused on their back. In our opinion no sane person would allow others to keep a dead body in his house, so as to create evidence against him. It is highly unlikely that a dead body would be carried away by the accused on their back. On a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features and the entire evidence with broad and reasonable probabilities of the case we find that the ocular testimony about the time and place of the incident cannot be relied upon. There is a serious doubt about the time and place of the incident and it appears that the origin and genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution. The salient features as noticed by us give us an impression that the prosecution has not come out with the truth. We thus find that the view of learned trial Judge in convicting and sentencing the appellants is wholly erroneous. 10. As a result of the above discussion we allow the instant appeal and set aside the impugned conviction of the appellants. We acquit the appellants Balbir, Kailash Chand, Sona, Lahari, Ami Lal @ Ami Chand and Sukh Ram of the charges under Sections 302/149, 148, 341 and 323/149, IPC. Appellants Balbir, Sona, Lahari, Ami Lal @ Ami Chand and Sukh Ram are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appellant Kailash Chand who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.