JUDGMENT 1. 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated February 23, 2001 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 47/2000, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPO to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that informant Lekh Ram (PW 7) instituted first information report at Police Station Nohar District Hanumangarh on August 29, 2000 at 7.30 AM with the averments that his brother Balak Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) after consuming liquor with appellant Pappu Ram on August 28, 2000 came back around 3.30 PM to his house. When Balak Ram again left the house at 6.00 PM, he has followed by the informant and his mother, who found Pappu Ram preventing Balak Ram from entering into Bara and exchanging altercation. Pappu Ram then made assault on Balak Ram with lathi as a result of which Balak Ram fell down. Having seen the incident the informant and his mother came back to their house and waited Balak Ram. When Balak Ram did not come back to the house, the informant and his mother again went to Bara where they found Balak Ram unconscious. Balak Ram was taken to the house in the night and when informant attended Balak Ram in the morning, he was no more. On the basis of the said information Police Station Nohar registered a case under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nohar. Charge under Sections 341 and 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited 19 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness however was examined in defence. On hearing the final submissions, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 3. Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Lekh Ram (PW 7) and Smt. Heera (PW 8) in view of their abnormal conduct. No witness however was examined in defence. On hearing the final submissions, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 3. Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Lekh Ram (PW 7) and Smt. Heera (PW 8) in view of their abnormal conduct. It is highly improbable that on seeing the incident from their own eyes, these witnesses left their kith and kin at the place of occurrence and came back and waited for him to come back. Delay in lodging the first information report in such a situation assumes significance and possibility of concoction can not be ruled out. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that conduct of Lekh Ram (PW.7) and Smt. Heera (PW8) was quite natural as because of fear they did not intervene and came back. 5. We have reflected over the rival submissions and closely scrutinised the material on record. A look at the post mortem report (Ex.P-2) demonstrates that death of the deceased was homicidal. As per the testimony of Dr. Anil Verma (PW2) cause of death was anti mortem head injury. 6. Coming to the prosecution evidence, we find that witnesses Smt. Mani and Chandri did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Informant Lekh Ram (PW7) disowned his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. by the police (Ex.D-1), wherein he stated that Barak Ram died in the morning. At the trial he deposed that Balak Ram died at 12 0' clok in the night. As there was no source of transportation they could not go to the police station to lodge the report. However, he admitted that the villagers had tractors, cars and jeeps and even there was hospital in the village. He also stated that Balak Ram was taken to the village doctor but he did not give any medicine. Smt. Heera (PW8) in her deposition stated that after Balak Ram sustained injuries and was taken by her to the house where he died at 8 AM nex day. She disowned her police statement wherein she stated that she was frightened and came back. She also stated that there was hospital in the village, but Balak Ram was not taken to the hospital. 7. She disowned her police statement wherein she stated that she was frightened and came back. She also stated that there was hospital in the village, but Balak Ram was not taken to the hospital. 7. Fact situation emerges from the above discussion may be summarised thus: (i) In the FIR (PW7) Lekh Ram stated that he and his mother came 40 back to their house after seeing the incident but at the trial he deposed that he did not come back on seeing the incident but removed Balak Ram immediately to his house. (ii) Lekh Ram in his police statement stated that Balak Ram died in the morning whereas at the trial he changed his version and stated that Balak Ram died at 12 0' clock in the night. (iii) Lekh Ram in his statement deposed that Balak Ram was taken to the village Doctor who refused to treat him whereas Smt. Heera stated that Balak Ram was not taken to the village hospital. (iv) Smt. Heera stated that Balak Ram died in the morning at 8.00 AM and disowned her police statement (Ex.D-8). 8. We find the conduct of Lekh Ram and Smt. Heera highly unnatural. It is improbable that mother and real brother of Balak Ram on finding him injured would not remove him to their house and left him to die. Inconsistencies noticed by us in the statements of Lekh Ram and Smt. Heera are material and they go to the root of the case. Lekh Ram and Smt. Heera are highly unreliable witnesses and conviction of the appellant on the basis of such infirm testimony is not sustainable. 9. In view of the discussions made herein-above, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated February 23, 2001 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nohar and acquit the appellant Pappu Ram of the charge under section 302 IPC. The appellant, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal Allowed-Conviction Set Aside. *******