JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Accused Rajpal was tried by VIth, Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in ST. No. 783 of 1979 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Barhan, District Agra. The trial Court acquitted him by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.1981. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. Encapsulating, the prosecution case, as per the F.I.R, lodged by Raj Singh P.W. 1, informant was that on 25.7.1979 at about 3.00 P.M. the informant and his brother-in-law Nekse Lal, P.W.3 were ploughing their field and the son of the informant Mool Chand (deceased) aged about 7 years was playing nearby. Raj Pal accused also had his ‘thar’ there present in the field of the informant. At 3 P.M. that day, when Mool Chand was not to be located, informant and Nekse Lal started searching for him and in that inquisitiveness they went to the ‘thar’ of Raj Pal. As soon as they reached near the ‘thar’, they heard a shriek enamating from inside the ‘thar’. They rushed in that direction and witnessed that Mool Chand was tied on his neck by a rope and accused Raj Pal was pulling the rope. As soon as the two witnesses reached near the victim, he had already breathed his last. On challenge being thrown by them, Raj Pal, accused-respondent tried to escape but was apprehended by the informant and Nekse Lal after some scuffle. Meanwhile, many people of the village assembled there. Informant left Raj Pal under the security of the village people went to the police station and lodged the report, Ex Ka-1, against the accused-respondent on the same day at 6.05 P.M. after covering a distance of 5 miles. Head Constable on the basis of ‘tahrir’ prepared the chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-3), and G.D. entry (Ex. Ka-4). P.W. 5 S.O. Ranvir Singh Vishnoi took up the investigation immediately, recorded the statement of the informant and then proceeded for the spot where he found two Police Constables, Har Vilash and Ram Prasad, of Aaharan Police Chowki present and the body of the deceased was found inside the ‘thar’ of the accused with a rope around his neck. The accused was in custody of some villagers. Next morning I.O. conducted the inquest and prepared other papers (Ex. Ka-5 to Ka-8) and then dispatched the body for postmortem. The accused was in custody of some villagers. Next morning I.O. conducted the inquest and prepared other papers (Ex. Ka-5 to Ka-8) and then dispatched the body for postmortem. After making the spot inspection and completion of investigation, the accused-respondent was booked for trial. 3. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 26.7.1979 at 2.45 P.M. by Dr. M.M.S.A. Khan P.W. 4 of District Hospital, Firozabad, who found a ligature mark present in between the suprasternal notch and thyroid cartilage encircling his whole neck. He also found two abraded contusions, one on the left side of neck 1.5 cms. x 0.5 cms. and the other over left sterno clavicular joint 3cms x l.5 cms. 4. During the trial the prosecution, to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined five witnesses Raj Singh, P.W. 1 (the informant and father of the deceased) and Nekse Lai, P.W.-3 (brother-in-law of the informant-maternal uncle of the deceased) were the eyewitnesses of fact. Constable, Har Vilash, P.W. 2 (who had taken the dead body for autopsy) Dr. M.M.S.A. Khan (who conducted autopsy.on the dead body) and Ranvir Singh Vishnoi P.W.5 (I.O.) were the formal witnesses. 5. The defence of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was that of denial. 6. The trial Court after examining the evidences, facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused was not proved and he was entitled to acquittal. It held that the witnesses could not withstand the text of cross-examination and they collapsed. 7. We have heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. in support of this appeal and Sri D.N. Wali, Advocate on behalf of accused-respondent at great length and have gone through the evidence and material on record. 8. Sri R.K. Singh harangued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. He submitted that the first informant and Nekse Lal were the eye-witnesses of incident, who were closely related with the deceased, as being his father and maternal uncle and, therefore, would be the last person to falsely implicate the accused. He contended that the postmortem report fully supported the prosecution version and there was nothing in the testimony of the doctor to contradict the prosecution version. He contended that the postmortem report fully supported the prosecution version and there was nothing in the testimony of the doctor to contradict the prosecution version. He further submitted that the investigation had been done with promptness in a fair and legal manner, which could not be adversely commented upon. Consequently, he appealed that the prosecution case is fully proved and the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused-respondent is liable to be convicted for slaughtering an infant boy aged about seven years. 9. Sri D.N. Wali, advocate, contrarily, submitted that the F.I.R. in the case was anti-timed and concocted and the evidence of recovery of the rope from the neck of the deceased as well as arrest of the accused were extremely dicey and unbelievable facts and had not been proved. He further submitted that the motive of the case was very weak and was not established. He contended that looking to the discrepant nature of evidence rendered by Raj Singh, P.W.I and Nekse Lai, P.W. 3 it can only be inferred, as has been done by the trial Court, that the prosecution miserably fail it to bring home the charge against the accused. Therefore, the instant appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Drawing curtain of his argument, he submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is neither perverse nor unreasonable and is based on correct appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and, therefore, should not be interfered with by this Court in the appeal. 10. On the basis of the rival contentions, we have examined the record and the evidence. Cogitating over the evidence, it revealed that the incident had taken place because of a land dispute between the informant and the accused. Raj Singh P.W. 1 has deposed that during the consolidation proceedings the portion of land belonging to the accused on which his alleged ‘thar’ existed was carved out and comprised in his (this witnesses) chak. He had many times requested in vain to the accused to remove his ‘thar’ (room) and because of that he was annoyed of him. Two or four days preceding the incident, he had admonished the accused for not removing his ‘thar’ and this had motivated the accused to murder his son. He had many times requested in vain to the accused to remove his ‘thar’ (room) and because of that he was annoyed of him. Two or four days preceding the incident, he had admonished the accused for not removing his ‘thar’ and this had motivated the accused to murder his son. However, during the cross-examination, he stated that the consolidation proceedings had taken place fourteenth and fifteenth years before and he did not remember, which plot number was taken out of his holding. He also did not remember as to which side of his land had been carved out. Nor did he remember the area of the said plot. He did not remember the names of the co-tenure holders. He had stated that the plot which was being ploughed by him at the time of the incident was purchased by him after consolidation proceedings from his father-in-law Jiva Ram through a sale deed. He did not remember as to whether in the said sale deed thar’ of the accused was mentioned or not. He further deposed that the deceased has come on the field at 11.00-12.00 O’clock noon that day all alone and since then he was playing in the field. He stated that when he failed to locate the deceased, he did not give any call to him but searched him in the room of his tubewell and then went to the thar of the accused. He further narrated that when he first saw the accused, he was pulling the knot tied around the neck of the deceased from both of his hands and the deceased was sitting on the ground and he was not fluttering his limbs at all. He admitted the fact that Nekse Lal P.W.3 is the son of the cousin brother of his father-in-law. He further admitted that one of his sons had died six or seven years before from measles. He denied the defence suggestion that the F.I.R. was cooked up later on and he was not an eye-witness of the incident and was not present on the spot. 11. Nekse Lal, P.W.3 was related and interested witness. For him to be present in the field along with the informant was extremely doubtful. He denied the defence suggestion that the F.I.R. was cooked up later on and he was not an eye-witness of the incident and was not present on the spot. 11. Nekse Lal, P.W.3 was related and interested witness. For him to be present in the field along with the informant was extremely doubtful. He stated that he had heard the shrieks of the deceased and he also saw the deceased being strangulated by the accused but he did not make any attempt to save him. He did not make any attempt to untie the knot of the rope around his neck. He did not accompany the informant to the police station and waited at the spot along with the accused. He is the son of the cousin brother of the father-in-law of the informant, namely, Jiva Ram. He also did not shout for the boy while searching for him. He stated that they were looking for the deceased here and there but did not call him by name. 12. Analytical analysis of the evidence of these witnesses reveal that no sale deed or any other documentary evidence was filed by P.W.I to substantiate purchase or carving out of holdings and, thus, motive alleged by the prosecution failed for dearth of evidence. Taking into account Section 91 of the evidence Act, the prosecution would have cemented its case by filing the documentary evidence of the sale deed and other papers regarding consolidation proceedings including comparative chart, re-demarcation of boundaries map, etc. In the lack of any documentary evidence regarding the said fact, it is not possible for us to hold the motive part of the prosecution case established and accept the ipse dixit of witnesses. 13. The conduct of P.W.1 made his presence on the spot extremely doubtful and indicate that probably he was not present at the spot and was playing on his imagination. He did not make any attempt to save the life of his son, so much so that he did not even attempt to unknot the rope tied around his neck. He did not take the deceased in his lap nor cried for help. His conduct of not giving a call to the deceased when he was not visible is most unnatural. The complacency with which he tried to search the deceased is not the conduct of a father. He did not take the deceased in his lap nor cried for help. His conduct of not giving a call to the deceased when he was not visible is most unnatural. The complacency with which he tried to search the deceased is not the conduct of a father. His evidence does not inspire any confidence at all and no reliance can be placed on it. We are not impressed by the evidence of this witness. His testimony is liable to be discarded, as has rightly been done by the trial Court. 14. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, his presence on the spot is equally doubtful and his evidence also is not worthy of credence. He does not know the name of his own grand-father and he has denied the relationship between his father and Jiva Ram. It transpires that he has tried to project himself as an independent witness, but failed. We are of the view that the evidence of this witness invites the same criticism as that of P.W.1. His testimony does not take the prosecution case any farther. 15. So far as the alleged arrest of the accused on the spot was concerned, the same was also not free from doubt. There was no injury found on the body of the accused. Had the unarmed accused been arrested on the spot at the time of the incident, he would not have been left without injury to his person. Moreover, the very fact that the two witnesses never ventured to save the deceased and on the contrary claimed to have apprehended the accused was very unnatural. The accused was 18 years of age and, therefore, his agility of sprinting would have been much more than the two witnesses, who were 35 and 45 years of age and thus it was not possible for them to catch him. Moreover, the informant and P.W.3 did not take the accused to the police station, when the informant was going to lodge the F.I.R., after his arrest, if at all. This conduct was not understandable and caused most vital damage to the allegation of spot arrest. Moreover, the informant and P.W.3 did not take the accused to the police station, when the informant was going to lodge the F.I.R., after his arrest, if at all. This conduct was not understandable and caused most vital damage to the allegation of spot arrest. We see no reason of keeping the accused at the place of the incident for about six hours till the I.O. reached at about 9.30 P.M. During these six hours, the accused never made any attempt to escape even though there was no evidence on record to show that his limbs were tied and he was made still or that his captives were armed. This conduct on the part of the accused not to make his escape good was rather indicative of the fact that probably he was not arrested on the spot and his arrest had been shown falsely. From the prosecution evidence, we have not been to able to satisfy ourselves on this score and, therefore, we hold that the arrest of the accused on the spot as alleged by the prosecution, was not established and was most doubtful. 16. From what we have stated herein before, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had not been able to establish the charge against the accused and he could not be held to be guilty. Thus, we uphold the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and the reasonings enunciated for the same by it. 17. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 18. Appeal is dismissed. 19. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith record. Appeal Dismissed. ———