JUDGMENT 1. - The three appellants namely Narsingh Lal, Prabhu @ Prabhu Lal and Raju @ Raju Ram @ Rajya were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Kota in Sessions Case No. 73/1993 for having committed murder of Roop Chand. When the case was posted for final hearing appellant Raju Ram @ Rajya absconded. therefor his trial stood separated and proceedings under Sections judge No. 3Kota vide judgment dated December 2, 1995 convicted and sentenced appellants Narsingh Lal and Prabhu @Prabhu Lal under Sections 302/34 IPC each to suffer Imprisonment. Thereafter appellant Raju was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated September 22,1999 under Section 302/34 IPC to suffer Imprisonment for and fine of Rs.500/- in default to further 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on January 2,1993 around 9.15 PM informant Daya Chand (PW5), orally informed police Station Mandana that Narsingh Lal, Raju @ Raju Ram and Prabhu @ prabhu Lal belaboured Roop Chand at about 3 PM while he was grazing buffaloes. Raju inflicted Gancasi-blow on the head of Roop Chand.When Roop Chand made attempt to escape, Narsingh Lal gave Lathi-blow on his feet, as a result of which Roop Chand fell down. Thereafter Prabhu Lal inflicted lathi-blow on his head. 3. At the time of loading report Ratti Ram (PW6), Hera Lal (PW10) and injured Roop Chand (now deceased)were with the informant. On the basis of said report case under Sections 307,323 and 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The injuries sustained by Roop Chand were examined by Dr. Chandra Bhan Singh (PW2) and according to injury report (Ex.P-1)Roop Chand sustained following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 1 3/4"Xperiostium deep on head right side obliquely placed above ear. Blood comes from wound on touch. 2. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/4" on Rt. check lateral to eye 3. lacerated wound forehead 1/4" X 1/4" X skin deep above right eye brow. 4. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/10" on left knee joint. 5. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/10" on Rt. Knee joint. 6. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/10" above right eye brow. Roop Chand thereafter was referred to Mbs hospital kota where he died and the case was converted into Section 302 IPC. Dead body of Roop Chand was subjected to post mortem by Dr.G.S.Bishnar (PW3). According to post mortem report (Ex.p-3) following injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Knee joint. 6. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/10" above right eye brow. Roop Chand thereafter was referred to Mbs hospital kota where he died and the case was converted into Section 302 IPC. Dead body of Roop Chand was subjected to post mortem by Dr.G.S.Bishnar (PW3). According to post mortem report (Ex.p-3) following injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 2, 1/2" X 1/2 X BD obliquely Rt. fronto parietal scalp. 2. Abrasion 2" X 1, 1/2" Rt. Mark region. 3. Bruise 3" X 1" Dorsum of Lt. head ulna side wrist. The case of death was coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. 4. The appellants after their arrest go recovered Gandasi and Bamboo- Sticks allegedly used arrest got recovered Gandasi and investigation charge sheet was filled and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions judge No.3, Kota. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against the appellants who denied the charge and claimed innocence and examined 4 witnesses in defence. The learned trial judges on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 5. Having closely scanned the material on record with the assistance of learned counsel we find that star witnesses of the prosecution are Harish (PW1) and Daya Chand (PW5). Harish, the nephew of deceases and a boy of 13 years deposed that on January 2, 1993 around 3 PM. while he was grazing buffaloes and Roop Chand was with him, Raju, Prabhu and Narsingh came over there. On being exhorted by Narsingh, Raju inflicted blow with Gandasi on the head of Roop Chand, Narsingh, thereafter gave lathi blow on his legs as a result of which Roop Chand, fell down and then Prabhu caused injury on his head with Lathi. After the assailants fled away, harish and Daya Chand leaving injured Roop Chand at the stop, went to the village and gave information of the incident to Ratti Ram, Heera Lal and Khem Raj. Roop Chand thereafter was taken to the Hospital where he died .In the cross examination Harish stated that on that day although he had gone to school but came back because of declaration of holiday. Thereafter he went to graze buffaloes and then Roop Chand met him and both of them together ate food at about 1.30 PM. Roop Chand thereafter was taken to the Hospital where he died .In the cross examination Harish stated that on that day although he had gone to school but came back because of declaration of holiday. Thereafter he went to graze buffaloes and then Roop Chand met him and both of them together ate food at about 1.30 PM. Corroborating the content of FIR informant Daya Chand (PW5) deposed that while he and Roop Chand were puffing Bidi, he saw Raju, Prabhu and Narsingh inflicting injuries on the head and feet of Roop Chand with Gandasi and Lathies Harish was also there . they both then rushed to the village and grave information about the incident. In the cross examination Daya Chand stated that after selling milk he proceeded from the village at 2.30 PM at that time buffaloes were not with him because they had left the village in the morning. He further stated that site plan as not drawn in his presence and it was Suraj Mal who had shown the site to police. 6. Khem Raj (Pw7) And Heera Lal (PW10) however deposed that Harish and Daya while informing them about the incident did not disclose the names of assailants. 7. We may catalogue here certain undisputed facts appearing in the prosecution evidence itself. these are:- (i) Harish and Daya Chand being nephew and brother-in-law, thickly related to the deceased. (ii) Deceased Roop Chand, according to Harish took the meals just one and half hour before the incident, but as per post mortem report the stomach of deceased Roop Chand was found empty. (iii) Ratti Ram, father of Harish, deposed that Harish did not go to school on the date of incident, whereas Harish stated that he had gone the school but came back. (iv) Harish and Daya Chand did not disclose the names of assailants to Raj and Heera Lal. On hearing that Roop Chand was killed they proceeded in search of roop Chand. (v) As per injury report (Ex.p-5) Roop Chand sustained two lacerated wounds on the right side of head and forehead but in the post mortem report (Ex. p-5) only one ante mortem incised wound was found on the head. 8. On hearing that Roop Chand was killed they proceeded in search of roop Chand. (v) As per injury report (Ex.p-5) Roop Chand sustained two lacerated wounds on the right side of head and forehead but in the post mortem report (Ex. p-5) only one ante mortem incised wound was found on the head. 8. Having analysed the prosecution evidence with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny we find the conduct of Harish ans Daya in not disclosing the names of the appellants to Ratti Ram . Heera Lal and Kham raj most unnatural. Had they seen the incident, they would have told ratti Ram, the real brother of Roop Chand, that appellants caused injures to Roop Chand. Harish was a school going teenager and Daya Chabd was a milk vendor and their presence at the time of incident is surrounded by lot of doubt. It is difficult to believe that Harish and daya Chand who were thickly related to Roop Chand, would have left him alone in an injures condition at the mercy of animals. It is inexplicable that when the place of incident was known to Harish and daya Chand, why did they start hunting for search of Roop Chand. How two lacerated wounds received by Roop Chand got converted into one incised wound after his death?On a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital feature and the entire evidence with broad and reasonable probabilities of the case we find that the ocular testimony about the time and place of incident and therefore presence of the eye witnesses at the time of incident becomes doubtful. All these facts 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. 9. For these reasons we allow the instant appeals and set aside the impugned judgment. We acquit appellants Raju @ Raju Ram @ Rajya, Narsingh Lal and Prabhu Lal @ Prabhu Lal are on bail need not surrender. Their bonds stand discharged. Appellant Raju @ Raju Ram @ rajya who is in shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******