C. L. PANGARKAR, J.:-The accused appellants were prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All three of them were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Washim and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-. 2. A few facts may be narrated thus: On 8th October, 2000 one Bablu Vasantrao Sarnaik went to police Patil of village Mohaja and informed him that he saw an unknown person lying dead in his field where Soyabean has been sown. Upon this the police Patil Bhima Hivarale went to the field belonging to Sarnaik. He found one person lying dead in the said field. The said person was wearing a black colour full pant and light blue colour shirt. The police Patil informed the police station by his report Ex.56. Upon this Head Constable Shivshankar went to the field of Sarnaik. He saw the dead body, called panch a witnesses and prepared inquest panchanama. He also had drawn a panchanama of the spot. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination. After carrying out the postmortem examination the police registered an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This incident of finding of the dead body occurred on 8th October, 2000. It is alleged that the accused surrendered before the police at Akola. They were arrested and brought to Washim for investigation. During the course of the investigation, it is alleged that the accused persons made a statement which led to the discovery of the knife and a gupti at the instance of accused No.1 and 2. These weapons were seized by the police. Similarly the clothes on the person of the accused were also seized by the police. After the investigation was completed a charge-sheet came to be filed against these three persons. 3. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court framed the charge and after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had brought home guilt to the accused and he, therefore, proceeded to convict each of the accused with the help of Section 34 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent-State. It may be mentioned that the fact of homicidal death of the deceased was not very much controverted. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent-State. It may be mentioned that the fact of homicidal death of the deceased was not very much controverted. Yet it can be said that there is enough evidence to hold that the deceased had died of the injuries sustained by him. Dr. Sandesh Rathod P.W.7 had carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body. He found injuries as mentioned in Co1.19 of the postmortem report which are described as follows: III. Internal Examination- 19. Head-Injury No.(8) in column-17. (1) Injuries under the : Injury No.(8) in scalp Col.17 their nature (2) Skull vault and Frontal bone (Rt) base-: side fracture. describe fractures, their sites, dimensions, directions etc. (3) Brain- The appea-: Sub dural Haematoma. of its coverings, size, weight and general condition of the organ itself and any abnormality found in its examination to be carefully noted (Weight M.3 gram, F.2.75grams) The opinion given by the doctor is that the deceased had died as a result of haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and direct trauma to heart. It is in the evidence that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature of the injuries definitely go to show that, the violence was used against the deceased, inasmuch as he was stabbed with sharp cutting objects. It is, therefore, amply proved that the deceased had died a homicidal death and the learned Sessions Judge rightly held the death to be homicidal. 5. The evidence of the prosecution is in the following form: (1) Two eye-witnesses namely: P.W.4 Vilas Kale and second, P.W.8 Bhagwat. (2) Two witnesses namely: P.W.3 Bandu and P.W.5 Amol who claim to have seen the deceased in the company of the appellants/accused last. (3) Discovery of weapons of crime at the instance of the accused/appellants 1 and 2; and (4) Reports of Chemical Analyser. We first propose to deal with the evidence of all the eye-witnesses. Learned Judge of the trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of both these witnesses. (3) Discovery of weapons of crime at the instance of the accused/appellants 1 and 2; and (4) Reports of Chemical Analyser. We first propose to deal with the evidence of all the eye-witnesses. Learned Judge of the trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of both these witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the trial Court should not have relied on the evidence of either of these two witnesses, firstly, because they are chance witnesses, secondly, because they did not disclose the incident to any body for 6 days after the incident had occurred and thirdly, because both of them do not claim to have seen each other although both of them claim to have seen the same incident at the same time at a secluded place and fourthly, due to the material contradictions. 6. P.W.4 Vilas has deposed that on the day of Dasera of 2000 he had gone with his friend Bablu to Washim and was going back to Risod with him on a motorcycle around 12.30 in the noon. Bablu was driving the motorcycle. He states that in the field in which crop of soyabean was standing he saw accused/appellants 1 to 3 assaulting one person. He specifically states that appellant No.1 Mangesh was armed with a knife, accused No.2 Arun was armed with a sword-stick and accused No.3 Suhas was armed with a stone. He states that he saw these three appellants/accused assaulting the deceased in the field and, therefore, they stopped their motorcycle. He states that on seeing them the appellants rushed to assault them and as such he and Bablu fled away from the spot. He claimed to have immediately informed this incident to one Hotelwala on the intersection of that road. This evidence of this witness does not inspire any confidence. Firstly because his statement that he disclosed the incident to a Hotelwala is proved to be false by the evidence of Investigation Officer Ramesh P.W.9. Investigation Officer specifically states in his examination-in-chief and even in cross-examination that upon enquiry with the persons on the intersection he found that none knew anything about it. He also states that he also made enquiry with the Hotelwala but none knew anything about it. The second reason is that the witness did not disclose this fact to anybody for a period of 6 days. He also states that he also made enquiry with the Hotelwala but none knew anything about it. The second reason is that the witness did not disclose this fact to anybody for a period of 6 days. It is stated by him that out of fear he did not disclose the incident to anybody. He has stated that he was frightened for a period of 2 days and therefore, did not go to police station and tell about the incident. This witness is a native of Risod a taluka place. He could have gone to the police station of his own village if he was so afraid of going to Washim. There is no plausible explanation for this default of not disclosing the incident to anybody including his own family members. 7. The second witness is P.W.8 Bhagwat. He states that he was going to his village Mohaja by bicycle around 12 noon from Washim. He also states about the assault on Kisan Tupsande by the accused/appellants with knife, sword stick and stone. He too states that out of fear he did not disclose the incident to anybody. It is in the evidence ofP.W.9 Ramesh the Investigating Officer that he had been to village Mohaja and he made enquiry with some villagers about the dead body. This witness P.W.8 Bhagwat is a native of village Mohaja and yet when police voluntarily came to his village to make enquiry he did not disclose this fact to the police. We fail to understand what then prompted both these witnesses to be bold all of a sudden after 6 days. The explanation offered is not worth being accepted. In a case reported in (State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda) A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 2488 following observations are made: "The evidence suffers from serious infirmities which have been discussed in detail by the High Court. It is not necessary to reiterate them, but it will be sufficient if we refer only to one infirmity which, in our opinion, is of the most serious character. Though according to this witness, she saw the murderous assault on Hrudasnanda by the respondent and she also saw the respondent coming out of the adjoining house of Nityananda where the rest of the murders were committed, she did not mention the name of the respondent as the assailant for a day and a half. Though according to this witness, she saw the murderous assault on Hrudasnanda by the respondent and she also saw the respondent coming out of the adjoining house of Nityananda where the rest of the murders were committed, she did not mention the name of the respondent as the assailant for a day and a half. The murders were committed in the night of 13th June, 1969 and yet she did not come out with the name of the respondent until the morning of 15th June, 1969. It is not possible to accept the explanation sought to be given on behalf of the prosecution that she did not disclose the name of the respondent as the assailant earlier than 15th June, 1969 on account of fear of the respondent. There could be no question of any fear from the respondent because in the first place, the respondent was not known to be a gangster or a confirmed criminal about whom people would be afraid, secondly, the police had already arrived at the scene and they were stationed in the Club House which was just opposite to the house of the witness and thirdly, A.S.I. Madan Das was her nephew and he had come to the village in connection with the case and had also visited her house on 14th June, 1969. It is indeed difficult to believe that this witness should not have disclosed the name of the respondent to the police or even to A.S.I. Madan Das and should have waited till the morning of 15th June, 1969 for giving out the name of the respondent. This is a very serious infirmity which destroys the credibility of the evidence of this witness." and another case reported in (State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhanudas Sommanna Sangolkar) 1997 Criminal Law Journal 3205 this Court held: "The first is that, for over 5 days from the date of incident, he did not disclose the incident to anyone. The prosecution sold out a reason, explaining such a conduct of this witness, namely the respondent had threatened him that in case he disclosed the incident to anyone, he would meet a fate similar to that of Jaywant. We are not impressed with the said reason. The evidence is that, on the next day of the incident, the police had come in village. We are not impressed with the said reason. The evidence is that, on the next day of the incident, the police had come in village. In our view, if he mustered courage to disclose to the police the incident after 5 days, he could have very well mustered courage to disclose it on the following day. Further in our judgment, there remains no justification for his having not informed his wife or other family members about the incident. In his cross-examination, when he was specifically asked in paragraph 5, he stated that he stayed for 3 to 4 days at his house and did not disclose the incident even to his family members. This, we are not prepared to accept. " In the case in hand it is to be observed that the accused are not confirmed criminals or gangsters. Further more according to prosecution the accused were absconding immediately after the incident. If they were so, then there was no danger at all, hence the explanation cannot at all be accepted. 8. There is yet another reason why both these witnesses cannot safely be relied. It was argued that both witnesses claim to have seen the actual assault while passing by the same road. It is a secluded place. If both had seen the same incident while standing on a road, it is strange that they did not notice each other. This suggests that both are got up witnesses. The observation of the learned Judge of the trial Court that both cannot be branded as chance witnesses, cannot for this reason be upheld. 9. The next two witnesses claim that they saw deceased last going with appellants on a motorcycle. The witnesses P.W.3 Bandu and P.W.5 Amol are very firm that they saw deceased going with accused/appellants on motorcycle on the day of Dasera i.e. on 7th October. The particular date is very important. We have seen that P.WA and P.W.8 claimed that the incident had taken place at 12.30 in the noon on 7th October. Ex.40 is an inquest panchanama dated 8th October, 2000 prepared between 15.45 to 16.30 hours. It is thus clear that even if it is assumed as true that the deceased was done to death on 7th October at 12.30 noon then his dead body was found within 30 to 35 hours only. The condition of the dead body however speaks otherwise. It is thus clear that even if it is assumed as true that the deceased was done to death on 7th October at 12.30 noon then his dead body was found within 30 to 35 hours only. The condition of the dead body however speaks otherwise. It shows that maggots were found on the body. Postmortem note is Ex.85. It shows that rigor mortis was absent and the body was decomposed. It is admitted by Dr. Sandesh P.W.7 that the maggots develop 4 to 5 days after the death. Autopsy was done on 9th October at 11 a.m. i.e. even before passing of 48 hours. In reply to a query Dr. Sandesh Rathod had informed police vide Ex.86 that death had occurred more than 48 hours prior to post-mortem. If the maggots had developed it must in fact be more than 72 hours. It is very much clear that the deceased had died atleast 2 days prior to 7th October. For this reason their evidence that they saw the deceased going with the accused/appellants on 7th October is not true. The next reason why P.W.5 Amol cannot be relied upon is that Amol states that he had gone to the house of deceased on 8th and enquired about Kisan and it was told to him that Kisan had not come to home since yesterday. In examination-in-chief he claims that Kisan had told him that he was going out of station. Thus the witness knew that Kisan had gone out of station and with whom. Yet he did not disclose the family members that what Kisan had told him. He specifically says that no talk about this, took place between him and the members of the family. This is a very unnatural conduct on the part of the witness. If he knew that the deceased had gone out of station and had not come back and that the members of the family ought to be anxious he should have told them that the deceased had told him that he was going out of station and had therefore not come back. 10. Even P.W.3 Bandu's evidence is full of improvements. He admits in cross-examination that he had failed to tell police that he had seen Kisan going on 7th October with accused/appellant Mangesh towards Patni Chowk. 10. Even P.W.3 Bandu's evidence is full of improvements. He admits in cross-examination that he had failed to tell police that he had seen Kisan going on 7th October with accused/appellant Mangesh towards Patni Chowk. He also admits that he did not tell that he saw the other two accused/appellants going towards Patni Chowk on Luna. This P.W.3 is the real brother of the deceased and yet he does not give any report in the police station about his brother being missing. The evidence of both of these two witnesses is such that it could not be safely relied. 11. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that the appellants/accused 1 and 2 had discovered a knife and a sword stick vide memorandum and panchanama Exs.77 to 79. P.W.6 Ravindra, panch does speak about accused No.1 and 2 having given statements which led to the discovery of the two articles. The witness however does not appear to be reliable firstly because he appears to be a pet witness of the police. He had acted in this crime only, thrice as a panch on different dates. He acted as panch a on 2nd November, 5th November and 10th November. This cannot be a mere coincidence. Secondly, it is doubtful if he had gone to the field at all. He states in cross examination that the crop of soyabean was found harvested in the field and grass had grown in the field. Ex.58 panchanama shows otherwise. It specifically says: "It is in soyabean field of Vasantrao - in the field soyabean is sown East-West." Even in the first information report Ex.56 lodged by Police Patil Hiwrale it is clearly mentioned that the body was lying in the field having a soyabean crop standing. It is, therefore, very doubtful, if at all the witness had gone to the field at the time of alleged discovery. His evidence, therefore, does not inspire confidence. The crime is of very serious nature and, it will, therefore, be very unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the police officer in the absence of the corroboration. 12. The report of the Chemical Analyser is placed on record at Ex.69. It shows that no blood was found what so ever, on the clothes seized from the person of the accused. 12. The report of the Chemical Analyser is placed on record at Ex.69. It shows that no blood was found what so ever, on the clothes seized from the person of the accused. Further it may be seen that it is not established that the weapons which were allegedly seized have stains of the blood group matching the blood group of deceased. This evidence, therefore, is also not of any help to the prosecution. 13. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that the accused were absconding for about a month after the incident and voluntarily surrendered at Akola and this specific conduct on the part of the accused/ appellants is enough to conclude that they are the perpetrators of the crime. The submission is devoid of substance. Simply because these persons were not apprehended during this period, it could not be said that they were absconding. Further more, during the course of the trial the learned Judge of the Sessions Court did not put any question to any of the accused seeking their explanation as to what all of them wanted to say about their being not available during that period. As a result of this the prosecution cannot take advantage of accused being not available during that period. 14. We are aware that when evidence of eye witness is available there is no need to look for motive. Yet in this case it must be mentioned that the deceased was taken to a secluded place and was done to death. The incident does not appear to have taken place at a spur of moment. There is not slightest whisper in the evidence about the motive. This is one of the circumstance which must go against prosecution. 15. The evidence led by the prosecution is not enough to conclude that the accused/appellants had committed this crime. As a result the appeal must be allowed. The appeal is allowed. Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. All the accused/appellants stand acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. If they are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.