Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The present appeal is filed by five appellants namely Ravinath, Daya Ram, Subhash, Pappu @ Bhagwan Das and Veer Singh, being aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 81/1996 dated 15.05.2000. By the impugned Judgment the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under:-Punished Under Section Sentences and Fine 1. Under Section 148, IPC To two years rigorous imprisonment to all 2. Under Section 302/149, IPC To life imprisonment to all and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine to one year R.I. .3. Under Section 307/149, IPCTo five years R.I. to all and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-by each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of six monhs. .2. All the sentences were observed to run concurrently. .3. Prosecution against the appellants was launched after lodging the first information report at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town on 08.07.1996 by Mani Ram S/o Uda Ram PW.2 alleging inter alia that his real brother Maga Ram @ Panchamnath lives in Jogiaasan Dera, Nohar. There is a dispute in between Panchamnath and Ravinath in relation to Dera land and a litigation is going on. The first informant has further alleged that on 08.07.1996 due to some work his brother Panchamnath came to the Court Campus Hanumangarh. In the evening he was returning to home on motor cycle which was driven by him alongwith his servants Banwari and Jagdish, who were his pillion riders. The first .informant alongwith Mani Ram and Hari Ram were following them on another motor cycle. They were going to Munda. While Panchamnath and his associate arrived near the Kola farm on Hanumangarh-Rawatsar road, at that time, complainants motor cycle was about 50-60 pawandas behind them. At that time, a jeep came from behind i.e., the side of Hanumangarh and dashed against the motor cycle driven by Panchamnath. By this impact motor cycle got skid, and rider fell on ground. Panchamnath and his two colleagues were about to get up, the accused Ravinath, Pappu, Daya Ram, Subhash and Veer Singh accused in the case alighted from the jeep. Boota Singh was also with them [an accused who is absconding] at that time Ravinath exhorted that today is the chance for finishing them and they should be killed. Panchamnath and his two colleagues were about to get up, the accused Ravinath, Pappu, Daya Ram, Subhash and Veer Singh accused in the case alighted from the jeep. Boota Singh was also with them [an accused who is absconding] at that time Ravinath exhorted that today is the chance for finishing them and they should be killed. On this Pappu gave blows to his brother and his two colleagues by gandasi. Other accused persons inflicted injuries by lathies. After inflicting injuries, they set in jeep and made their escape good. 4. Complainant claims that he saw the incident from a distance because he and his colleague apprehended danger. He alleged to have seen the incident from behind the bush. After the accused made their escape good. Witnesses went to the place of occurrence and saw that Banwari has succumbed to his injuries and his brother Panchamnath and Jagdish were lying unconscious. Then came a jeep from the side of Rawatsar, a constable was sitting in that jeep. He took Jagdish and Panchamnath in that jeep to hospital and there they were admitted. The complainant further said that the dead body of Banwari was lying on the scene of the occurrence. The jeep of Ravinath which caused accident was said to be bearing registration No. RJ 13/C-2927. On this report a case under Section 302, 307, 323, 324, 147, 148 read with 149 was registered. PW. 10 Surendra Singh SHO started investigation and site was inspected. Injured Jagdish who was unconscious, succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Panchamnath in his unconscious stage was transferred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana where he was examined and treated. 5. After investigation challan was presented against the accused person. Case was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions, Hanumangarh. The charges were framed against the accused person under Sections 148 and 302 in alternative 302/149 and 307 in alternative 307/149, IPC were framed against the accused persons. Accused persons denied their charges and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and got 53 documents exhibited. Challan was presented against the six persons. Accused Boota Singh who remained absent during the trial, was declared absconder and the trial of the five accused persons was held. Accused was examined under Section 313, CrPC. Accused persons denied their charges and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and got 53 documents exhibited. Challan was presented against the six persons. Accused Boota Singh who remained absent during the trial, was declared absconder and the trial of the five accused persons was held. Accused was examined under Section 313, CrPC. It was claimed that there was a dispute in between Ravinath and Panchamnath in relation to the land of Dera Panchamnath is a wicked person and PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram being his brothers associated him. On 06.05.1996 Panchamnath entered into his Dera and caused injuries to him by virtue of which left leg got fractured. In that case, FIR was lodged and challan was filed against Panchamnath. In yet another incident abduction took place from Dera and at that time Ravinath was arrested. He claimed that his left leg was fractured. Police after inquiry got his left leg replastered. 6. In the instant case by hatching a conspiracy a case has been concocted against the accused persons. It was a simple case of road accident where Jagdish and Banwari succumbed to the injuries and a case was framed up by PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram. On their persuasion of PW. 1 Panchamnath also gave same kind of statement. 7. After considering the case of the prosecution and examining the record and statement of witness, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that it was not a case of accident. Infact the prosecution story is trustworthy wherien Panchamnath PW.1 and his two associates deceased Banwari and Jagdish were going to Nohar and they were followed by Mani Ram and Hari Ram. They were following them on another motor cycle. At that time a hit was given to the motor cycle by the jeep driven by Ravinath. Thereafter, assault was made on the riders of the motor cycle. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the story of Ravinath that his leg was not in position to function is only a pretext. Driving of jeep due to his left leg being fractured was not possible is only a false plea because the injury was sustained by him on 06.05.1997. The accident occurred on 08.07.1996. The injury to leg was almost two months old. Driving of jeep due to his left leg being fractured was not possible is only a false plea because the injury was sustained by him on 06.05.1997. The accident occurred on 08.07.1996. The injury to leg was almost two months old. It cannot be said that he was not in a position to drive the jeep and follow the accused. The trial Court has also not given any weightage to the fact that PW. 2 Mani Ram when gave statement to police he stated that Pappu inflicted injuries by gandasi whereas in his Court statement he states that injuries inflicted by axe. This discrepancy has not been considered to be sound enough to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Another aspect of the prosecution case is the statement of PW. 8 Om Prakash, Constable who was examined by police at a very late stage. No explanation was given by the Investigating Officer for his late examination. This aspect was also not given any weightage by the trial Court. 8. PW. 8 Om Prakash was the Constable posted at Shergarh out post, from where after receiving the information he carried the injured to the hospital. The information was communicated to this witness by one truck owner but no record has been made by this witness in the diary of the check post. Not making of such record has also not been given any weightage by the trial Court. The trial Court considered that it was not necessary to seek corroborating of this witness. Trial Court has also not given any weightage to the late examination of the PW. 1 who got discharged from CMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 25.07.1996 and even after his release from hospital he was examined by police at a very late stage on 11.08.1996. The trial Court came to the conclusion that testimony of the three eye-witness PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram is trustworthy. Believing the prosecution story the trial Court proceeded to record the conviction and sentence of the accused persons as aforesaid. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the Judgment of the trial Court urged that after the accident the first person of police party who was informed about the incident is alleged to be a Constable i.e. PW. 8 Om Prakash. PW. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the Judgment of the trial Court urged that after the accident the first person of police party who was informed about the incident is alleged to be a Constable i.e. PW. 8 Om Prakash. PW. 8 Om Prakash Constable in his statement submits that he was informed by a truck driver about the incident. There had been no investigation in this direction as to who was the truck driver and what exact information this truck driver communicated to PW. 8 Om Prakash Constable. No record has been made by this witness about the information received by him. In absence of the exact nature of information communicated to PW. 8 Om Prakash it would not be safe on relying on the statement of the PW. 8 Om Prakash that it was the information of incident which was in the nature of crime and not an accident. This fact assumes importance in the background when PW. 8 Om Prakash comes alone in a jeep without any further attempt being made by him to secure the police assistance. Had it been a case of commission of crime? PW. 8 Constable Om Prakash would have tried to send some information to the concerned police station from his check post itself . In this background, the late examination of this witness by police assumes importance. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant further urged that when PW. 8 Om Prakash took two injured Panchamnath and Jagdish to the hospital. In hospital record he never get this fact recorded that it was a case involving incident of criminal nature. All the facts recorded in the documents record that it was a case of accident only. That was the first opportunity available with this witness to have asserted his so called information received by him that a criminal incident has occurred involving assault. According to the witness PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram, they were accompanying injured to hospital and they arrived almost at the same time when the injured and the deceased arrived at the hospital. However, there was a delay of few minutes in their arrival. They got hold up for a while because railway crossing was closed. 11. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants the statement of these two witnesses PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram are not correct. However, there was a delay of few minutes in their arrival. They got hold up for a while because railway crossing was closed. 11. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants the statement of these two witnesses PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram are not correct. The fact of incident being of criminal nature, it would have definitely come in the records of the hospital. PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram have not come to the hospital as alleged. Their arrival at the hospital becomes a doubtful preposition. The hospital record in the nature of Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-5 show that two unknown injured persons have been brought after a road accident. It appears to be a natural consequence of the available information at that point. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant further stressed that these two persons PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram have permitted PW. 8 Constable Om Prakash to took injured with him. The dead body of Banwari was lying on the scene of occurrence. As a normal conduct one of the two would have definitely chosen to remain back where the dead body was lying on the road. Banwari having died on the spot, his dead body could not have been left unattended. None of these two persons chose to remain there and permitted the injured Panchamnath and Jagdish to be carried to hospital unaccompanied though the vehicle was a jeep. They were neither with the injured nor with the deceased, this kind of conduct is highly unbelievable. One of them could have chosen to remain near the deceased or with the injured. But they chose none of these courses. This explains the defence suggestion that they were called subsequently to get first information lodged. They were infact not there when the occurrence took place. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants stressed on the point that these two witnesses PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram were not present on the scene and they were only called to lodge the FIR. Their testimony is of no consequence. As far as the prosecuion case is concerned, they claimed that Panchamnath had come alongwith his two associates Jagdish and Banwari. Panchamnath and his two associates were said to have gone to Hanumangarh in relation to some job in the Court. Their testimony is of no consequence. As far as the prosecuion case is concerned, they claimed that Panchamnath had come alongwith his two associates Jagdish and Banwari. Panchamnath and his two associates were said to have gone to Hanumangarh in relation to some job in the Court. When the witnesses were asked by the defence they have failed to explain as to what exact nature of work, for which they attended the Court. According to these two witnesses the deceased and injured PW. 1 Panchamnath were going to Munda. They were definitely not Nohar bound, their destination was Kola Farm. A circumstance not fully established by the prosecution. They have not properly explained as to how they had gone to Courts. 14. Panchamnath and deceased were being followed by them according to these two witnesses. They saw that firstly the jeep dashed against the motor cycle and then the accused made an assault on the persons who had fallen down from the motor cycle and they saw the injured from about a distance of 50-60 pawandas from behind the bush. This is a fact which was also not disclosed by them before the police officer when site plan was drawn at their instance. Thus, it is clear that their presence has only been procured to make them eye-witnesses. Their explanation for being on the scene of the occurrence is unconvincing. Their assertion that they reached the hospital is unbelievable as the hospital records do not show the name of the witness of the injured recorded in the hospital records. The records show that unknown persons have been admitted by injured in the hospital after a road accident. Though not much can be read into the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased but it definitely points to the fact that what can be mode of sustaining injuries? Except one injury none of the injuries can be said to have been inflicted by any sharp edged weapon, which is said to have been used by accused. There is only one injury of incised nature out of the number of injuries sustained by both the deceased persons. This shows that prosecution story falls short of explanation about the manner of inflicting injuries. 15. The presence of these two witnesses PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. There is only one injury of incised nature out of the number of injuries sustained by both the deceased persons. This shows that prosecution story falls short of explanation about the manner of inflicting injuries. 15. The presence of these two witnesses PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram further stands falsified from the fact that the number of jeep as has been given in the FIR is false one. The digits having been wrongly given. No sufficient explanation has been given, it only shows that it was an after thought that these witnesses were called and a jeep number was added. If they had seen the jeep numbers then correct number would have been given in the FIR. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellants further stressed that at the time when the accused Ravinath was arrested his left leg was plastered that was because he had earlier sustained fracture in an incident. A person with the plastered left leg has been assigned the role of a driver in the incident, which is highly improbable circumstance because when a leg is plastered with the fracture, it does not permit the driver to drive the vehicle involving such overtones as has been assigned. 17. The injured Panchamnath was admitted in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. He was discharged from the hospital on 25.07.1996 immediately after being discharged from the hospital, his statement was not recorded by police. It is said that the police had not known that he has been discharged. He was an important witness, Police should have considered worth of this witness and he was required to be examined forthwith but sufficient time was given to prepare this witness for giving statement in the line of PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram. This witness was examined by police on 11.08.1996 he was relieved from the hospital on 25.07.1996. This witness gives his reasoning for going to the Court that there was a date in the Court but no Court record has been produced to corroborate his version that they had gone to the Court for this reason. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellants prays that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 18. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case where there is an injured eye-witness Panchamnath. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellants prays that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 18. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case where there is an injured eye-witness Panchamnath. His version is liable to be believed because there is no serious infirmity in his statement and there is no reason which shows that he would involve wrong persons when he himself has sustained injuries. In the face of testimony of this injured eye-witness, testimony of other eye-witnesses PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram are liable to be accepted. There was a case of deep rooted enmity between the accused and injured party and there is every reason for these charges of the commission of crime as accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly discarded the minor discrepancy and has rightly believed the prosecution case. The defence version was that it was only an accident which has not been believed by the Court. The trial Court has held rightly against the accused persons because the prosecution has succeeded in establishing of the guilt of the accused persons. 19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and perused the record. 20. PW. 8 Om Prakash is one of the most important witness to unfold the prosecution case. The most important aspect of the prosecution case is wherein he received the information about the incident. Information was communicated to him by a truck driver. Who was that truck driver and what information did he give, is not available in any of the records. This witness in his statement admitted that he is not in a position to inform the Court about the name of the driver because he has not asked him. He has also submitted that he has not recorded the information received by him from the truck driver is any of the records of Chowki. Thus, this aspect of the case that this witness received information about the incident as alleged by the prosecution is not corroborated by the most important witness. He has not been traced by the Investigating Agency. This witness claims that by wireless he had intimated the town police Hanumangarh Town about the incident. He had requested the town police to reach Kola Farm and as he himself was proceeding towards the Kola Farm. He has not been traced by the Investigating Agency. This witness claims that by wireless he had intimated the town police Hanumangarh Town about the incident. He had requested the town police to reach Kola Farm and as he himself was proceeding towards the Kola Farm. This information if supported by the Hanumangarh police station would have been very significant aspect but the Investigating Officer PW. 10 Surendra Singh, SHO, in his Courts statement submitted that on 08.07.1996 before the registration of the FIR no wireless message regarding any incident or accident was received by the police station. Thus, claim of the witness PW. 8 Om Prakash falls to the ground that he informed the Hanumangarh town police about the incident. Initial version of the prosecution thus suffers from the vice of ambiguity. 21. The witness PW.8 Om Prakash in his Courts statement further submitted that two persons who have met him on the scene of the occurrence he had carried them alongwith him. Now these two witnesses are PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram claim that they travelled to hospital by a separate vehicle. Thus, this version of these witnesses is also confusing. According to this witness he had asked the names of the three injured from these witness. But having known the names he goes to say that he has not informed the names of these injured to the doctor. He says that Doctor had not asked and he did not inform the names of injured to the doctor. The record of the hospital Exhibit D-5 records that unknown injured were brought by police. At that time if the doctor recorded that the injured has been brought by the police. He also records in Exhibit D-4 that it was a case of road accident. It shows that the person who brought the injured to the hospital until then had only informed the doctor that it was a case of road accident. Exhibit D-5 records that the names of the patient was not known because no relatives were present. These things could not have been recorded if the claim of PW. 8 Om Prakash is true that he had asked the name of the accused from the two witnesses. He was expected to give names of doctors. Exhibit D-5 records that the names of the patient was not known because no relatives were present. These things could not have been recorded if the claim of PW. 8 Om Prakash is true that he had asked the name of the accused from the two witnesses. He was expected to give names of doctors. In the later part of document Exhibit D-5 it has been recorded that the name has been recorded later, after the same was known through their relatives until then records of the hospital speaks that history was not known as to how the injuries were sustained. All these goes to show that the prosecution witnesses have not correctly described initial version. Those facts which were necessary to unfold the beginning of the prosecution case have not been correctly deposed. When doubts are available right from the inception of the case of the prosecution it has to be scrutinized with caution. 22. We have considered the statement of PW. 1 Panchamnath injured eye-witness. This person having sustained injuries was shifted to the CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. After his treatment he was discharged from the hospital on 25.07.1996. In that hospital he is alleged to have not informed the doctor as to how he sustained the injuries. Thus, the first occasion when this witness should have informed hospital about his knowledge of the incident was not utilised. No information was given to the concerned doctors. Statement Exhibit D-1 of this witness was recorded by the Investigating Agency on 11.08.1996. No cogent explanation has been afforded either by the Investigating Agency or by this witness as to why his statement was recorded so late. Further the statement of this witness assumes importance from the defence point of view wherein his police statement does not record as to first of all Pappu inflicted head injury by an axe to this witness. His police statement also does not record that Banwari and Jagdish were also assaulted by Pappu by axe. Thus, the beginning of the assault by the accused as alleged in the prosecution case was by Pappu and that aspect is not stated in his police statement. 23. This witness has tried to explain that Banwari and Jagdish were taken by him for protecting him but he admits that no weapon was carried with them. Thus, the beginning of the assault by the accused as alleged in the prosecution case was by Pappu and that aspect is not stated in his police statement. 23. This witness has tried to explain that Banwari and Jagdish were taken by him for protecting him but he admits that no weapon was carried with them. When this witness stands contradicted by his police statement regarding the beginning of the assault on him then defence allegation that recording of his statement late was to tutor is of great significance. It assumes greater importance in the case. If this witness is not in a position to describe the prosecution case as has been unfolded by the other witnesses then this varience goes a long way. More particularly when the first injury was allegedly inflicted by Pappu to him this witness has not narrated this in his police statement. 24. PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram are the witnesses who claimed to have followed the deceased. The deceased and injured were going to Nohar and they were going to Munda. They alleged to have seen the incident from a distance of 50-60 pawandas. If these witnesses are true then they should have informed PW. 8 Om Prakash about every fact at the earliest. But from record this fact does not stand establish because PW. 8 Om Prakash has not communicated this information to Hanumangarh police though he claims to have communicated this information to Hanumangarh police. Receipt of such information have not denied by the SHO. It can be said that this witness is not a truthful witness. In turn, claims of PW. 2 Mani Ram and PW. 3 Hari Ram that they saw the occurrence also falls. If they were the eye-witness of the occurrence then they were expected to inform to the police official who arrived at scene of occurrence. These two witnesses did not go to the hospital alongwith injured and stay with dead body as submitted by themselves because they were delayed by closing of railway crossing. The omission of name of the injured and mode of sustaining injuries in the medical record show that until that time neither PW. 8 Om Prakash nor any one else knew about it. The omission of name of the injured and mode of sustaining injuries in the medical record show that until that time neither PW. 8 Om Prakash nor any one else knew about it. If the names of injured were recorded after information from the relatives then it shows that either these were not the relatives who informed the doctor or if they were the persons who met the doctor then they were knowing no details of incident. Thus, the first police official who alleged to have met these witnesses is not a true version. It is not proved by these two witnesses that doctors at the hospital were informed by them. The doctor received the information only regard to an accident. The two facts occurring as recorded in the hospital records runs contrary to the prosecution case. 25. Written records of the hospital speaking contrary to the prosecution case in the nature where the incident has only been described as accident, negates the claim of PW . 2 Mani Ram and PW . 3 Hari Ram. It also negates the claim of PW . 8 Om Prakash that he had taken the witnesses alongwith him which according to PW . 2 and PW . 3 was also not correct proposition because they have claimed to travel by a different vehicle. The presence of these witnesses becomes doubtful i.e. doubtful from this fact also that they have failed to explain their reason for presence alongwith the deceased and injured, as no record of the Court proceedings have been proved. The first information report at the police station should have been the information which PW . 8 claims to have sent to Hanumangarh Town police but such information was not available. The testimony of these witness further suffer from infirmity that the first informant has given wrong numbers of the jeep. Thus, in the face of the written record Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-5, their testimony is also not liable to be sustained. When the testimony of all the three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution is subject to serious doubt, the prosecution case cannot be said to be made out as claimed. The accused are, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed. When the testimony of all the three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution is subject to serious doubt, the prosecution case cannot be said to be made out as claimed. The accused are, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the accused Ravinath Daya Ram, Subhash, Pappu @ Bhagwan Das and Veer Singh being unsustainable, is set aside and consequently, the sentence passed against these accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149, IPC is also set aside. They are in jail, if not required in any other case, should be released forthwith.