Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. The four appellants in this appeal are the three brother Lala (30), Ramesh (35) and Braham (36) sons of Ram Krishan of Fatehpur Chandela. The fourth is Inderaj (44), Rameshs brother-in-law, who belongs to Dehkola. The four appellants alongwith five others were tried for the murder of Jasbir Singh (32) of Daultabad. Two of the co-accused of the appellants, namely Anil and Ashok had died during the trial while three other co-accused, namely, Rajesh, wife of Injderaj, Mansa Ram and Roshan were acquitted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Faridabad pronounced judgment on May 19, 2003 convicting the four appellants for offences under Sections 148/ 302 and 149 I.P.C. All four were awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 I.P.C. There were also respective sentences of fine. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The appellants have appealed. 2. There was intense business rivalry between Jasbir Singh (deceased) his brothers Sukhbir (PW1) and Harbir (PW2) on the one hand and Ramesh and his brother-in-law Inderaj on the other over bicycle stands near the old Faridabad Railway Station. The two stands were close to each other but the stand being run by the deceased and his brothers was nearer the Railway Station and a greater number of cycles would be parked there. Ramesh and Inderaj would often scold Jasbir Singh for winning over their customers. 3. On November 25, 1997 a verbal altercation had taken place between Jasbir Singh on the one hand and Ramesh and other appellants on the other, leading to exchange of abuses. Sukhbir (PW1) had intervened. Inderaj appellant suggested that instead of reporting the matter to the police, they should settle the matter between themselves. It was decided that a Panchayat should be convened for the purpose in the evening. 4. Sukhbir (PW1) stayed back at the cycle stand upto 6 P.M. While Jasbir Singh went to Fatehpur Chandela, the village of the appellants for attending the Panchayat. Sukhbir (PW1) returned home but after waiting till 9 P.M. for Jasbir Singh to return, he began to suspect that something untoward may have happened. 4. Sukhbir (PW1) stayed back at the cycle stand upto 6 P.M. While Jasbir Singh went to Fatehpur Chandela, the village of the appellants for attending the Panchayat. Sukhbir (PW1) returned home but after waiting till 9 P.M. for Jasbir Singh to return, he began to suspect that something untoward may have happened. Thereupon, Sukhbir (PW1) and his brother Harbir (PW2) set out for Fatehpur Chandela where they learnt that no Panchayat had been held there at least uptil 10.30 P.M. They could not get any clue regarding the whereabouts of their brother Jasbir Singh. When Sukhbir (PW1) and Harbir (PW2) were returning and had reached near the Government School of the village they heard Jasbir Singh crying "bachao-bachao". The two brothers rushed to that place and from a distance of about 20 paces saw that Jasbir Singh had fallen on the ground and was bleeding profusely. They also saw the four appellants and Anil (deceased accused) standing there. Anil was armed with an axe and Ramesh and Inderaj were armed with iron rods (sarias). Lala and Braham were armed with lathies. On seeing the witnesses all five of them ran away towards Sector 21- B. The appellants were identified in the light of the street light. Jasbir Singh became unconscious on account of multiple injuries on his person. Sukhbir sent Harbir to arrange for transport to take Jasbir Singh to hospital. Harbir (PW2) returned with their brother-in-law Bishan Sarup, who also brought his car. Jasbir Singh was evacuated to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad but the O.P.D. was crowded so he was taken to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad where he was declared dead. 5. The Medical Officer at B.K. Hospital despatched a slip to Incharge, Police Post, B.K. Hospital at 1.15 A.M. on November 26 reporting that Jasbir Singh (32) son of Natha Singh, resident of Daultabad had been brought dead. The site of incident was opposite Government Boys School, Fatehpur Chandela and he had been brought by Bishan Singh son of Sh. Lekhi Ram, resident of 620, Sector 21B, who was his brother-in-law (jija). 6. The above slip was received by Mohd. Ishak (PW7), Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad at 4 A.M. The Inspector immediately reached B.K. Hospital where Sukhbir (PW1) met him and his statement was recorded. Lekhi Ram, resident of 620, Sector 21B, who was his brother-in-law (jija). 6. The above slip was received by Mohd. Ishak (PW7), Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad at 4 A.M. The Inspector immediately reached B.K. Hospital where Sukhbir (PW1) met him and his statement was recorded. On the basis of the said statement F.I.R. No. 1350 under Section 302/148/149 I.P.C. was registered at 4.20 A.M. on November 26, 1997 at the abovementioned Police Station. Special report of the F.I.R. was delivered to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad at 8.45 A.M. on the same morning. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest proceedings and then sent the dead body for post- mortem examination while himself proceeded to Fatehpur Chandela. The post- mortem was conducted by Dr. P.S. Parihar (PW4) at 11 A.M. on November 26. The Medical officer found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "1. Lacerated wound 7.1 cms on the left parietal region of the head. It was situated anterio posteriorly. Clotted blood was found present. 2. Lacerated wound 3.05 cm on the mid-line and the frontal region of the head. 3. Bruise 3x2 cm on the right cheek. 4. Left upper limb. i) Left arm and fore-arm were swollen, deformed and red. Bone was protruding out from posterior surface of the left elbow. ii) Two Lacerated wounds 3x1 cm and 2.5x1 cm on the outer surface of left arm. On dissection, the left upper limb was found clotted and liquid blood was present in the underlying soft tissues and muscles which were also injured. There was fracture and dislocation of left radius of the elbow region. Tear or brachial vessels was present. iii) Right arm swollen with bruises all over the outer surface of the right arm. One lacerated wound 1.05 cm on the posterior surface of the right elbow on dissection. Liquid and clotted blood was found present in the right arm and right elbow. 5. Right lower limb: i) Right great toe was amputated at MP joint. Clotted blood was found present at the amputation with irregular edges of amputation stump. ii) Right leg was deformed and swollen. There were found Lacerated wounds on the anterior surface of right leg measuring 3x1.5, 1x0.5, lxl and 1.5x l cm. Muscles were protruding out from all these four lacerated wounds. Clotted blood was found present at the amputation with irregular edges of amputation stump. ii) Right leg was deformed and swollen. There were found Lacerated wounds on the anterior surface of right leg measuring 3x1.5, 1x0.5, lxl and 1.5x l cm. Muscles were protruding out from all these four lacerated wounds. On dissection clotted and liquid blood was present in these wounds with injuries to underlying tissues and blood vessels. Fractures of both bones of right leg at lower 1/3rd part. 6. Left lower limb: i) Left leg was deformed and swollen. There were four lacerated wounds on the anterior surface of the left leg measuring 1x0.5, 4x 1, 1x05 and l x 1 cm. On dissection, fractures of both bones at lower 1/3rd part with liquid and clotted blood were noticed. All the organs were found to be pale." 7. According to the Medical Officer, the time between injuries and death was a few minutes and post-mortem had been conducted within 24 hours of the death. Causes of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem multiple injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. After despatching the dead body for post-mortem examination, the Investigating Officer had gone to Fatehpur Chandela where he inspected the place of occurrence and also prepared a rough site plan. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the accused were arrested on different dates. Braham and Inder were arrested on December 3, 1997 and on the basis of their disclosure statements, a lathi was recovered from Braham and likewise an iron rod was recovered from Inder. Lala and two of the acquitted accused were arrested on December 7. Lalas interrogation led to the recovery of a lathi on the basis of his disclosure statement. After conclusion of the investigation, only eight out of nine accused were sent up for trial. Ramesh had absconded and could not be arrested. The learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 148, 302, 149 and 120-B I.P.C. against the appellants (barring Ramesh) and five other co-accused. Ramesh was later arrested and a supplementary challan was filed, on commitment to the Court of Sessions he was separately charged in respect of the above mentioned offence. All the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. Ramesh was later arrested and a supplementary challan was filed, on commitment to the Court of Sessions he was separately charged in respect of the above mentioned offence. All the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. The prosecution examined Sukhbir (PW1), Harbir (PW2), Shish Pal (PW3), Dr. P.S. Parihar (PW4), H.C. Hari Chand (PW5), H.C. Anoj Kumar (PW6) Inspector Mohd. Ishak (PW7), C. Naurang Singh (PW8) and Sub-Inspector Virender Singh (PW9) and closed its case. 10. The accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the various items of evidence which appeared against them and pleaded innocence. When called upon to enter defence, the accused examined Dr. Gopal Bhagat (DW 1) and Pushpa Gulati (DW 2). 11. The learned trial Judge concluded that the deceased had been inflicted injuries by Anil, Ramesh, Inderaj, Braham and Lala with various weapons. The number and nature of injuries was such that there was no escape from the conclusion that the accused had intentionally caused the death of Jasbir as the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The other four accused were acquitted. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that both the eye-witnesses were highly interested being brothers of the deceased and they were also chance witnesses whose presence at the spot had not been established. They had mentioned nothing about the injuries being caused to the deceased by the appellants. They had simply testified that they had seen the appellants, who were variously armed, near the spot where Jasbir was lying injured. It was also contended that neither of the two eye witnesses had been recorded as accompanying the dead body in the slip Ex. PG sent by the Medical Officer to the Police Post, reporting that Jasbir Singh had been brought dead to B.K. Hospital by Bishan Singh (Sarup) at 1.15 A.M. on November 26, 1997. The story of the injured being taken to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad was false and had been introduced to cover up the delay. 13. This is a case in which the eye-witness account must be closely scrutinised since the witnesses had not accompanied the deceased to Fatehpur Chandela in the first instance and had only gone there to look for him after he had failed to return. Fatehpur Chandela is a suburb of Faridabad. 13. This is a case in which the eye-witness account must be closely scrutinised since the witnesses had not accompanied the deceased to Fatehpur Chandela in the first instance and had only gone there to look for him after he had failed to return. Fatehpur Chandela is a suburb of Faridabad. The events of the night of November 25 had taken place within a small area. The place of occurrence in Fatehpur Chandela was only 1-2 kms from Police Station, N.I.T. Faridabad while B.K. Hospital was about 2 Kms. from the Police Station and Daultabad, the residence of the deceased and his brothers, about 3-4 kms from the hospital. 14. In every case certain important events, places and chronology is always fixed because the proof of these events, places and chronology is irrefutable. In the present case, the slip Ex. PG established beyond ary doubt that the deceased had been brought to B.K. Hospital by Bishan Singh and report of this event was sent to the Police Post at 1.15 A.M. Even though Bishan Singh (Sarup) was not examined by the prosecution having been given up as unnecessary, both Sukhbir (PW1) and Harbir (PW2) unanimously stated that they alongwith Bishan Sarup had evacuated Jasbir from the spot to the hospital, in Bishan Sarups car at about 11.30 P.M. Jasbir was first taken to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad but they found that there was a lot of rush in the O.P.D. Thereafter, they took Jasbir to B.K. Hospital where he was declared dead by the Medical Officer. It is indeed strange that the name of neither Sukhbir nor Harbir are mentioned as having brought the dead body. Just as the slip Ex.PG definitely established that the dead body had been brought by Bishan Singh (Sarup), it definitely excludes Sukhbir and Harbir as having accompanied the dead body. 15. The two eye-witnesses were unanimous that they had known that Jasbir Singh had gone to Fatehpur Chandela to attend the Panchayat but when he did not return upto 9 P.M. they went out to look for him. They first went to the cycle stand but Jasbir Singh was not found there. They then went to Fatehpur Chandela but were unable to locate the deceased. At Fatehpur Chandela they had come to know that no Panchayat had been held that evening. They first went to the cycle stand but Jasbir Singh was not found there. They then went to Fatehpur Chandela but were unable to locate the deceased. At Fatehpur Chandela they had come to know that no Panchayat had been held that evening. When they were starting back for their village and had reached near the school building they heard Jasbir Singh shouting. They ran towards that direction and saw Jasbir Singh lying injured on the ground. They also saw the four appellants and Anil, armed with various weapons, present there. On reaching the spot, the assailants escaped. 16. The eye-witnesses did not see any one inflicting any injury on the deceased. All that they saw was the injured man lying on the ground and five men standing around him. The injured man was asking to be saved. When the witnesses heard his cries, they rushed towards him and five assailants escaped. This episode could not have taken more than a couple of minutes. It is extremely difficult to believe that at that precise moment the two witnesses happened to pass near the school to hear the cries of the deceased. There is no evidence as regards the mode of transport employed by Jasbir Singh to go to Fatehpur Chandela or the mode of transport employed by the two witnesses to go to that village. If the two witnesses had gone on a scooter or a motor car then there would have been corroboration of this fact but it seems that they were most probably on foot. When a person sets out to look for another in the middle of a cold winter night it is unlikely that he would be on foot when he could very well cover much more distance on a scooter or even a bicycle. The witnesses were returning to their home after they had learnt that no Panchayat had taken place, when they heard the cries of the deceased. The whole episode seems to be such a coincident that it becomes difficult to believe that Sukhbir (PW1) and Harbir (PW2) had witnessed the whole occurrence or any part of the occurrence in which Jasbir Singh was inflicted fatal injuries. 17. The whole episode seems to be such a coincident that it becomes difficult to believe that Sukhbir (PW1) and Harbir (PW2) had witnessed the whole occurrence or any part of the occurrence in which Jasbir Singh was inflicted fatal injuries. 17. Occasionally Courts do make use of the time of delivery of special report 8.45 A.M. on November 26 in the present case to work backwards to see if the occurrence had taken place at the time stated in F.I.R. In the present case the chronology of events as testified by the witnesses is that they had heard the cries of the deceased at 11 P.M., the report of arrival of the dead body by the Medical Officer was sent at 1.15 A.M., Sukhbir (PW1)s statement was recorded at 4 A.M., yet the special report was delivered at 8.45 A.M. on November 26 at Faridabad. This further strengthens, the view that the witnesses saw nothing and were probably not immediately available for being cited as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. Time was required for this purpose to summon the two brothers after information of murder of the deceased was received at the Police Station. It is for this reason that there was a time gap of almost four and a half hours between the registration of the case and the delivery of the special report, which is far too long as the Police Station and the Court/residence of the Magistrate were both are at Faridabad. 18. We have gone through the record of the case and have examined it from all angles. We are convinced that the eye-witnesses did not see the occurrence, they were not present at Fatehpur Chandela, they did not help in evacuating their injured brother. They came forward to stand in as eye- witnesses on account of close relationship. The prosecution examined no witness from Fatehpur Chandela to lend corroboration to the version put forth at the trial. This failure further strengthens our view that the witnesses were not truthful witnesses and could not be relied upon for convicting the appellant. 19. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is accepted and the appellants are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released forthwith, unless wanted in some other case.