Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. The above two Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 24/29.10.1996 vide which appellant, Naresh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further RI for six months. Appellants Suraj Mal, Daya Nand, Jai Parkash and Ramesh were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 304/149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was sentenced to undergo further RI for six months. All the appellants were also sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 148 IPC and RI for three years under Section 450 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1997 has been filed by the complainant for convicting Suraj Mal, Daya Nand, Jai Parkash, Ramesh and Silak Ram under Section 302/149 IPC along with Naresh. He also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs as provided under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Both the appeals as well as Criminal Revision are being disposed of by this common judgment as the same have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 24/29.10.1996 passed by learned trial Court. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16.7.1995 at about 9 P.M., Urmila, wife of deceased Ranbir, told her father-in-law, PW-7 Maman Singh that Jai Parkash, Naresh and Ramesh sons of Surajmal and Surajmal, Dayanand son of Pyare Lal resident of Bhambewa, who were armed with lathi, gave lathis blows to Ranbir at his house. At that time one more person of the family of the assailants was accompanying them, who was empty handed. He caught hold Ranbir. In this occurrence, Ranbir sustained injuries on the head, on the right knee, at the side of his head and back. Rakesh administered medicines who had witnessed the occurrence. The further case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 18/19.7.1995, Ranbir was taken by Surinder and Narinder to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi where he was declared as brought dead at 12.55 a.m. and an intimation was sent to Police Station, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. ASI Harbir Singh went to the hospital and collected M.L.R. of Ranbir. The further case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 18/19.7.1995, Ranbir was taken by Surinder and Narinder to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi where he was declared as brought dead at 12.55 a.m. and an intimation was sent to Police Station, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. ASI Harbir Singh went to the hospital and collected M.L.R. of Ranbir. Then Harbir Singh went to 103, Himalaya Building, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi as per address given by Surinder and Narinder. They also disclosed that deceased Ranbir was resident of village Bhambewa, Distt. Rohtak. Thereafter, S.H.O. Police Station Mukherjee Nagar deputed S.I. Narinder Singh to verify the facts. He came to village Bhambewa and recorded the statement of Urmila, wife of deceased, Ex. PH and also recorded the statement of PW-5 Risalo, Ex. DB. After return to the police station, a DDR No. 16-A was recorded on 19.7.1995 and the statement was handed over to ASI Harbir Singh. The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on 20.7.1995. 4. On 21.7.1995, PW-13 SI Dharam Pal, who was on temporary duty, received a wireless message, Ex. PC, from DCP, New Delhi. Then he went to Police Station, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, and collected record of the case related to deceased Ranbir. He went to Village Bhambewa and recorded the statement of Maman Singh, Ex. PE, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PE-2 was recorded. 5. After completion of investigation, challan against all the six accused was presented in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions being exclusively triable by the said Court. 6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW-1 C. Sumeet Kumar, PW-2 HC Murari Kumar, PW-3 Urmila, wife of deceased Ranbir Singh, PW-4 Rakesh Kumar, PW-5 Risalo, PW-6 Yashbir Singh, PW-7 Maman Singh, complainant, PW-8 HC Budh Dev, PW-9 Shiv Charan, PW-10 Dr. C.B. Dabass, PW-11 SI Narender, PW-12 ASI Harbir Singh and PW-13 Dharam Pal. 7. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Accused Naresh took the following plea :- "There is a water course adjoining the field of son Rakesh PW which leads to our fields. Rakesh and his father used to obstruct the flow of water on our turn which led to fight and beatings several times. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Accused Naresh took the following plea :- "There is a water course adjoining the field of son Rakesh PW which leads to our fields. Rakesh and his father used to obstruct the flow of water on our turn which led to fight and beatings several times. There is a shamlat land near the Chopal of Ganjaas and Rakesh had constructed mengers for illegally taking possession of that land as the same is situated at the back of their house. The accused party had objected to their unlawful possession and uprooted their pegs and disturbed their unlawful possession. So, the family of Rakesh had a grudge against us on that account also. I was serving in the Department of Xen Panchayat Raj, Rohtak, as a Junior Engineer and was permanently residing at Rohtak alongwith my family for the last several years. As a matter of fact, no incident of the type made out by the prosecution ever took place in our village and even on the alleged date and time I was at Rohtak. Rakesh and his family instigated Maman and the members of his family to falsely implicate us after concocting a false story in collusion with the local police. I am innocent. I had been attending my duties in the office at Rohtak upto 24.7.1995." 8. The accused were called to lead defence. In their defence, they examined DW-1 Sri Kishan, DW-2 Jawahar Lal, DW-3 Deen Dayal, DW-4 Dalet Singh, DW-5 Mahender Singh, DW-6 HC Mahender Singh and DW-7 Raj Kumar. 9. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them vide judgment and order dated 24/29.10.1996 as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, against which the present appeals have been filed. 10. Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the occurrence had not taken place as per the case put forth by the prosecution. He contended that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of occurrence that how deceased Ranbir had received injuries on his person. He submitted that as per the post mortem examination conducted by PW-10 Dr. C.B. Dabass, deceased Ranbir had sustained five injuries Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were one day old while injuries Nos. He contended that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of occurrence that how deceased Ranbir had received injuries on his person. He submitted that as per the post mortem examination conducted by PW-10 Dr. C.B. Dabass, deceased Ranbir had sustained five injuries Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were one day old while injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were 3 to 5 days old and injury No. 5 was atleast 3 days old. He submitted that the alleged occurrence was witnessed by PW-3 Urmila, wife of the deceased Ranbir. But she had not supported the case of the prosecution. He pointed out that as per PW-3 Urmila, deceased Ranbir had disclosed to her that he had received injury on his head while coming from duty at the hands of some unknown person and the injury was not visible. The deceased went to attend the duty on the next day. Injury No. 1, which was fatal, was one day old. Therefore, this injury was not sustained by the deceased on 16.7.1995, rather the same was received by him at the hands of some unknown person in the intervening night of 19/20.7.1995. He further submitted that the deceased was a dismissed police constable. After dismissal from service, he became vagabond and number of criminal cases were registered against him. He also contended that due to criminal background, the deceased was having number of enemies but Risalo and Naresh had deposed against the appellants being inimical to them and they have been introduced as witnesses to strengthen the case. He also submitted that PW-7 Maman Singh was not witness to the occurrence. His evidence was here-say (hearsay ?) only. PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-5 Risalo had not witnessed the occurrence as their evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence. They were also inimical towards the appellants. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and contended that no evidence has been brought by the defence that Rakesh and Risalo had not witnessed the occurrence. He further contended that minor inconsistencies in the ocular version and medical evidence do not make the case of the prosecution doubtful, particularly when the ocular version is unimpeachable. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone though the record. 13. He further contended that minor inconsistencies in the ocular version and medical evidence do not make the case of the prosecution doubtful, particularly when the ocular version is unimpeachable. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone though the record. 13. In the case in hand, the post mortem was conducted by PW-10 Dr. C.B. Dabass on the dead body of Ranbir. He found the following injuries on his person :- "1. One lacerated wound 4.2 x 3 cm situated on right tempore parietal region head and the wound was surrounded by a bruise in an area of 6 x 5 cm. The wound bled on touching its edges. 2. One abrasion with bright red scab, 1.5 x 5 cm in size, situated on left side of face under the eye. 3. Abrasion 1.3 x .2 cm. located on front of middle part of left leg. 4. Abrasion 2.5 x 4 cm on back of upper part of left fore-arm. Both these abrasions showed scab with brown discolouration. 5. One infected wound measuring 7 x 5 cm with greenish pus like material covering the floor of the wound. It was situated on upper part and front of right knee." 14. As per the opinion of the doctor, death in this case was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent to injury No. 1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The FIR in this case was recorded on the statement of PW-7 Maman Singh. He deposed that on 16.7.1995, his daughter-in-law Urmila wife of Ranbir Singh, deceased, came to him and informed that Jai Parkash, Naresh and Surajbhan had caused injuries to Ranbir. He then went to the house of Ranbir, who was lying unconscious. He asked Rakesh to give first aid to Ranbir. Thereafter, Ranbir regained consciousness and replied that he was quite well. He further deposed that on 18.7.1995, Ranbir went to Delhi on his duty. On 19.7.1995, Delhi police came to him at about 3/4 A.M. and informed about the death of Ranbir Singh. The statements of Urmila and Risalo were also recorded. However, Urmila had not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-4 Rakesh deposed that at about 9 P.M., he was present in his house. He heard the cries of Urmila `Bachao Bachao. On 19.7.1995, Delhi police came to him at about 3/4 A.M. and informed about the death of Ranbir Singh. The statements of Urmila and Risalo were also recorded. However, Urmila had not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-4 Rakesh deposed that at about 9 P.M., he was present in his house. He heard the cries of Urmila `Bachao Bachao. He and his mother Risalo reached at the spot. Ranbir deceased was being caught hold by Silak Ram Master. Naresh gave a lathi blow on the head of Ranbir. Jai Parkash, Ramesh, Dayanand and Surajmal were also having lathis in their hands. Ramesh and Jai Parkash gave lathi blows on the right leg and back of Ranbir. Surajmal and Dayanand also gave blows on the leg and back ribs of Ranbir. On receipt of injuries, he fell down on the ground. They rescued Ranbir and gave him first aid. He subsequently came to know that Ranbir succumbed to the injuries which he received at the hands of the appellants. To the same effect was the statement of PW-5 Risalo. As per the ocular version, deceased Ranbir received injuries on 16.7.1995. The head injury, which proved fatal, was also received on 16.7.1995 but as per the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. C.B. Dabass, who conducted the post mortem examination on 20.7.1995, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were one day old. The doctor had given this opinion after examining the injuries suffered by deceased Ranbir. The wound bled on touching its edge. Therefore, the deceased had not received the injuries on 16.7.1995, rather the same were received by him on the intervening night of 19/20.7.1995. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had given the injuries to Ranbir on the intervening night of 19/20.7.1995. Therefore, there is no eye-witness in this case. 15. PW-12 ASI Harbir Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital after receipt of information about the death of Ranbir. He interrogated Surinder and Narinder and they disclosed the address of the deceased. However, they were not examined by the prosecution. But ASI Harbir Singh had admitted that he had recorded their statements. Narinder and Surinder had deposed in their statements that on 18.7.1995 at about 2 or 3 P.M., Ranbir came to the office in an injured condition. There were injuries all over his body, which was bandaged. However, they were not examined by the prosecution. But ASI Harbir Singh had admitted that he had recorded their statements. Narinder and Surinder had deposed in their statements that on 18.7.1995 at about 2 or 3 P.M., Ranbir came to the office in an injured condition. There were injuries all over his body, which was bandaged. He told that he was not feeling well and wanted to take some rest. Thereafter, he took tea once or twice. At about 10 Oclock, he took the meal but at about 12 mid-night his condition deteriorated and they took him to the hospital where he was declared dead. Narinder and Surinder had not deposed before ASI Harbir Singh that deceased Ranbir had disclosed them that he was given injuries by the appellants at the alleged time and place of occurrence. It is relevant to mention here that defence can rely on any document placed by the prosecution. 16. PW-3 Urmila had also deposed that on 16.8.1995, her husband came to the house in the night and disclosed that when he alighted from the tempo, someone hit on his head and he could not identify that person. On the next morning, he went to attend his duty. 17. As per the statement of PW-10 Dr. C.B. Dabass, injury No. 5 was infected wound measuring 7 x 5 cm with greenish pus material covering the floor of the wound. This shows that the said injury was received by the deceased at the hands of some one much prior to the day of occurrence. 18. As per the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 16.7.1995 but the FIR was recorded on 22.7.1995 on the statement of PW-7 Maman Singh. PW-7 Maman had tried to explain the delay in his statement by deposing that a compromise was effected between the parties on 17.7.1995. However, no independent witness was brought on record to prove the fact that any compromise was effected between the parties. 19. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that deceased Ranbir had received injuries at the hands of some unknown person during the intervening night of 19/20.7.1995 but subsequently the prosecution had concocted a story that deceased Ranbir had received injuries in his house at the hands of the appellants in the presence of Urmila and Rakesh. As it has been discussed above, Urmila has not supported the case of the prosecution. She was grilled by the prosecution during cross-examination but nothing favourable came to the prosecution to connect the appellants with the crime. 20. In Criminal Appeal No. 621-DB of 1996, Manbharri and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 8.2.2005, this Court has held as under :- "We are conscious of the fact that law requires acceptance of testimony of the eye-witness, whose presence is proved for their receiving injuries in the very occurrence where some body has died, but the same is true where medical evidence may support such a version. It also requires to be accepted where the medical evidence may be such which may be capable of two interpretations and one interpretation may support the prosecution version, but if the medical evidence may be in sharp contrast to ocular evidence, to that extent, even the statement of a witness, whose presence may be proved, has to be rejected." 21. In the case in hand also, the entire version given by the prosecution is contradictory to the medical evidence. As per the above settled position of law, when there is a minor contradiction between ocular version and medical evidence, the ocular version will prevail but when the medical evidence is totally contradictory to the ocular version, the ocular version is to be discarded. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly convicted the appellants. 22. The up-shot of the above discussion is that both the Criminal Appeal Nos. 646-DB and 762-SB of 1996 are allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1997 is dismissed.