Judgment N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, sangaria, by impugned judgment dated 19-12-2002 convicted and sentenced appellants viz; (1) Rai Singh, (2) Bhagirath, (3) Ranveer; (4) Indersen alias Omprakash, (5) Mahaveer, (6) Kuldeep, (7) Ramswaroop and (8) Krishna Duttas follows : section 302/149 IPC : life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo three months Imprisonment; section 364/ 149 IPC : seven years rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo three months r. I. Section 201/149 IPC : three years rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo three months R. I. Section 148 IPC : two years rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo two months Imprisonment. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 5. 9. 1997 at about 10. 45 P. M. . P. W. 11 Smt. Guddi r/o Kishanpura accompanied by her son-in-law P. W. 13 mahaveer Prasad r/o Chautala (Haryana)lodged an oral F. I. R. Ex. D. 4 at the Police station, Sangaria stating inter alia that her husband P. W. 5 Rameshwar Lal had gone to 365-H about a month back to look after their field. She was staying with her two sons viz; Dalip and Dharampal in village Kishanpura. Their relations with the family of Sahab Ram s/o Ganpat Ram were inimical for sometime. At about 7. 30 PM, while she along with her daughter p. W. I2 Saroj was sitting in the compound, her deceased son Dalip aged 18 years was sleeping in the room outside his house. At that time, accused Sahab ram and Madan Lal, both sons of Ganpat ram, riding on two motor-cycles and a jeep arrived. Both the accused persons sahab Ram and Madanlal and six unknown persons entered into the room and lifted his son Dalip and forcibly took him away in the jeep. On intervention, she was threatened of life by accused Sahab ram. Her cries did not attract anybody from the neighbourhood. After their departure, she went to village Chautala and narrated the incident to P. W. 13 mahaveer Prasad. She also stated that her son Dharampal, who had gone to the village, also did not return to the house. On intervention, she was threatened of life by accused Sahab ram. Her cries did not attract anybody from the neighbourhood. After their departure, she went to village Chautala and narrated the incident to P. W. 13 mahaveer Prasad. She also stated that her son Dharampal, who had gone to the village, also did not return to the house. On this information, P. W. 15. Bhan Singh registered the F. I. R. for the offence u/ss. 365, 147, 148 and 448 IPC. P. W. 14 budha Ram was asked to proceed with the investigation. The police prepared the site plan. A pair of blood-stained shoes with socks were found in the field Chak 12 PTP. P. W. 1. Jagdish Prasad identified the pair of shoes belonging to deceased dharampal. Three wooden pieces stained with blood were also found near the pair of shoes. They were also seized arid sealed on the spot In the presence of P. W. 1 jagdish Prasad in the field Chak 16 KSD village Alipura, a blood-stained piece of pant was found lying. It was also seized and sealed vide Ex. P. 3. On 8. 9. 1997, the dead body of Dharampal was found near the Burji No. 103 of canal Sardul Branch. Inquest report of the dead-body was prepared in the presence of motbirs bhagirath and Ram Kumar vide Ex. P. 30. An underwear from the dead body of dharampal was seized vide Ex. P. 33. The dead body was sent for autopsy. On 9. 9. 1997, the dead body of Dalip Chand was found near the Canal 5 PM. The dead body was taken out from the Canal vide ex. P. 35. The inquest memo was prepared vide Ex. P. 36. The dead body was sent for the autopsy. The accused persons were arrested. The recoveries were made in pursuance of the informations given by them After usual investigation, the police laid chargesheet against the appellants for the offence u/ss. 302/149, 364/149, 148 and 201 /149 IPC. ( 3 ) THE appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial; The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant examined 22 witnesses and produced number of documents. The appellants in their statements u/sec. 313 crpc denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. ( 3 ) THE appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial; The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant examined 22 witnesses and produced number of documents. The appellants in their statements u/sec. 313 crpc denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The learned trial Court found the prosecution case proved and, as such, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by Mr. M. D. Purohit, learned Senior Advocate, that it is a case of blind murder and names of the present appellants have been inserted to wreak vengeance against them. The falsity of the whole prosecution case is exposed when the so called eye-witness P. W. 11 smt. Guddi, who is the author of the F. I. R. , exonerated named persons viz; Sahab Ram and Madan Lal. Not only this, the case set up in the F. I. R. to the effect that six assailants were unidentified, was upturn giving them the identity as appellants by name saying that they were known to her prior to incident. Learned counsel has also criticised another eye-witness viz; P. W. 1 jagdish, on the ground that he set up" entirely a new case, changing the version given in the F. I. R. Similarly, he has also criticised the statement of P. W. 12 smt. Saroj. It is submitted that she could not have witnessed the incident from her house as the place of incident being at a distance of 1km and there being a pond surrounded by huge trees and sand walls in between. As to the medical evidence, it was submitted that the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death as the dead body of Dalip was eaten by the animals. As regards the evidence of recovery, learned counsel stated that except in case of appellant Rai Singh, the trial court itself has not found the same incriminating. On the other hand, learned public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. ( 5 ) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through and scrutinised the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that Dharam Pal died of homicidal death. P. W. 9. Dr. On the other hand, learned public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. ( 5 ) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through and scrutinised the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that Dharam Pal died of homicidal death. P. W. 9. Dr. Jagtar Singh has stated that he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Dharampal vide Ex. P. 20 and noticed the following injuries:"1. Contusion 16 cm x 6. 5 cm on left mid clavicular lines of chest from above to downwards direction, having fracture/ of 5, 6, 7, 8 ribs at mid clavicular line; 2. Contusion 14 cm x 5. 5 cm on right mid clavicular line of chest from above to downwards direction having fracture of 5,6,7,8 ribs at mid clavicular line ; 3. Multiple bruises of different sizes conglomerated with each other spread over area of 8. 1/2" x 7" on left gluteal region; 4. Multiple bruises 8" x 5. 1/2" bruises of different sizes, conglomerated with each other on posterior side of left thigh; 5. Multiple bruises 9" x 6-1/2" bruises of different size glomerated with each other on posterior side of eight things. 6. Bruise 8 cm x 3 cm right knee on back side; 7. Multiple bruises 6" x 4" Bruises of different size and directions conglomerated with each other on post side of middle of left leg ; 8. Bruise 9cm x 3cm right upper arm on upper 1/3rd area at lateral side; 9. Bruise 7cm x 2. 5cm right forearm on outer side at middle 1/3rd in the transverse direction; 10. Bruise 6cm x 3cm left upper arm on middle 1/3 area at outer side; 11. Bruise 7cm x 3cm left forearm on outer side at distal 1/3rd in the transverse direction; 12. Bruise 5cm x 2cm right hand on dorsal side at distal half; 13. Bruise 14cm x 8cm right Post. Side of chest at middle, Bruise having different sizes and directions conglomerated with each other. "in his opinion, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to bilateral lung injuries caused by multiple rib fracture. All the injuries were reported to be ante mortem in nature. ( 6 ) DR. Jagat Singh also conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Dalip chand vide Ex. P. 21. "in his opinion, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to bilateral lung injuries caused by multiple rib fracture. All the injuries were reported to be ante mortem in nature. ( 6 ) DR. Jagat Singh also conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Dalip chand vide Ex. P. 21. But the doctor could not give the cause of death, as the body had decomposed. ( 7 ) THE entire case rests on the testimony of the three eye-witnesses viz; p. W. 1 Jagdish, P. W. 11 Smt. Guddi and p. W. 12 Smt. Saroj. They being closely related and labelled as interested and inimical witnesses, their testimony has to be closely scrutinised, which we shall do one by one. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 Jagdish is the nephew of p. W. 11 Smt. Guddi. Thus, in his statement, he had addressed her as "tai" (elder aunty ). He has stated that on the date of incident at about 7 P. M. , he was at his residence taking care of the cattle. Hearing the squall, he came out of the house and witnessed deceased Dharampal and dalipchand being chased by the accused persons in a jeep. They were rounded up near the open plot by the appellants namely Rai Singh, Madan, Krishna, mahaveer, Ranveer, Ramswaroop, kuldeep and Indersen. He stated that madan was not present among the accused present in the Court. He further stated that jeep dashed against dharampal on account of which he fell down. Appellant Krishna got down from the jeep and gave a lathi blow on the head of Dalip. All other arrested persons got down from the jeep and mounted attack on Dalip and Dharampal by lathis and abducted in the jeep. Having witnessed the incident, he rushed to the house of her "tai" (elder aunty) i. e. P. W. 1 Guddi. There, he met with Lal Chand and his wife Saraswati. The police inspected the site on the next day. He alongwith his uncle P. W. 5 Rameshwar accompanied the police to village. 12 PTP. In the field, a pair of shoes with socks belonging to dharampal was found. Three blood stained wooden pieces were also found. They were seized and sealed by the police on the spot. Thereafter, they proceeded to Chak-16 along with the police. He alongwith his uncle P. W. 5 Rameshwar accompanied the police to village. 12 PTP. In the field, a pair of shoes with socks belonging to dharampal was found. Three blood stained wooden pieces were also found. They were seized and sealed by the police on the spot. Thereafter, they proceeded to Chak-16 along with the police. There, a piece of pant and string with three empty bottles of liquor were found. They were also seized and sealed. Referring to a three days prior incident, he stated that a gun shot was fired from the house of Madan Sarpanch at the time when both the deceased persons were passing through the street, however, they were narrowly escaped. According to the witness, attempt was made by Madan sarpanch to kill them. As to the motive, he stated that Dharampal was tried on the charge of murder of Puran Ram, the grandfather of Madan Sarpanch. However, he was acquitted. Thus Madan Lal was unhappy with the acquittal of Dharampal. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Puran Ram was not the real grandfather of Madan. He further admitted that puran Ram left behind two sons viz; mastana Ram and Sajan Ram. He also admitted that after the incident, his "tai" (elder aunty) i. e. P. W. 11 Smt. Guddi went to report the matter to her son-in-law mahaveer at village Chautala. He had narrated the names of the appellants as abductors of Dalip and Dharampal. The said fact was disclosed to Mahendra, indraj and Subhash as well. However, they did not go in search of them. He also admitted that the distance between his house and the house of Smt. Guddi was about 5 killas. He also admitted that in front of the house of Saroj and Guddi, there is a water tank. Around the tank, there are huge trees. He gave out the distance between the village Kishanpura and Chautala as 25 kms. He also admitted that the incident was witnessed by lal Chand and Saraswati. He denied the suggestion that he was giving a false statement being a relative of Dharampal and Dalip. Around the tank, there are huge trees. He gave out the distance between the village Kishanpura and Chautala as 25 kms. He also admitted that the incident was witnessed by lal Chand and Saraswati. He denied the suggestion that he was giving a false statement being a relative of Dharampal and Dalip. The major criticism against the statement of this witness is that, if he had actually witnessed the incident and identified the appellants as assailants and abductors, there was no reason for the prosecution not tp identify the appellants by name in the F. I. R. , instead of referring as unknown persons. ( 9 ) P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi stated that at about 7. 30 PM she was sitting with her daughter P. W. 12 Saroj. Deceased dharampal and Dalip were in the room. She heard of a jeep being parked outside the house. She alongwith Saroj came out of the house. Madan pounced on his son dharampal and Rai Singh on Dalip inside the room. On her intervention, she was being kicked in her stomach by madan Lal. Her both the sons on losing the grip of accused persons, got themselves released and ran outside. They were chased by Madan and Rai Singh outside the house, a jeep was parked. Accused Mahaveer, Ranveer, Ramswaroop, Indersen, Kishan and Bhagirath were standing near the jeep. She stated that all the accused persons were present in the court except Madan. All the accused persons boarded the jeep and chased them. They were rounded up on the open plot. Rai Singh dashed his jeep against Dharampal on account of which he fell down. All the accused persons got down. Appellant Kishan gave lathi blow on the head of Dalip on account of which he also fell down. All the accused persons mounted attack on them with lathis. Both of them were lifted and put in the jeep. Thereafter, her both the sons were not found alive. At that time, Jagdish arrived at her residence. Thereafter, she proceeded to village Chautala to take the help of his son-in-law for lodging the F. I. R. at Police Station, Sangaria. Her husband returned from 365-H on the next day. The grandfather of Madan was murdered for which his son Dharampal was charged. However, he was acquitted of the charge. At that time, Jagdish arrived at her residence. Thereafter, she proceeded to village Chautala to take the help of his son-in-law for lodging the F. I. R. at Police Station, Sangaria. Her husband returned from 365-H on the next day. The grandfather of Madan was murdered for which his son Dharampal was charged. However, he was acquitted of the charge. She also stated that the fathers name of madan and Rai Singh is "ram Narain" but while lodging the F. I. R, she wrongly mentioned it as "ganpat". She also wrongly mentioned the name of "sahab Ram" instead of "rai Singh". She stated that it was in fact Rai Singh. In the cross examination, she admitted that her daughter Smt. Saroj had arrived on the occasion of Hoii and she was pregnant. She admitted to have gone to village Chautala alone. She left behind Jagdish at the house. She pleaded ignorance about the names of the parents of the accused persons. It was stated that she was aware of the name of father of Madan and Rai singh. She did not know Sahab Ram. She had known accused Mahaveer, ranveer, Ramswaroop, Ugrasen, Krishna, bhagirath and Rai Singh for about 3 years from the date of incident. She boarded the bus for going to Chautala. She narrated the entire incident to Mahaveer at chautala. She had given out the names of all the accused persons to her son-in-law Mahaveer. Thereafter, she went to the police station along with her son-in-law Mahaveer. At the time of lodging the f. I. R. Mahaveer was with her. Mahaveer also put his signatures on the written report. When she was confronted of omission of names of the accused persons in the F. I. R. , she simply stated that the names were given out by her but the police might not have written. When she was confronted with part of the statement in the F. I. R. to the effect that at the time of incident, Dharampal had gone to the village, she denied to have given such a statement. She has admitted number of omissions in the F. I. R. on being confronted in the cross examination. ( 10 ) P. W. 12 Smt. Saroj is the sister of two deceased Dalip Chand and dharampal. At the time of the incident, she was sitting in the compound alongwith her mother. She has admitted number of omissions in the F. I. R. on being confronted in the cross examination. ( 10 ) P. W. 12 Smt. Saroj is the sister of two deceased Dalip Chand and dharampal. At the time of the incident, she was sitting in the compound alongwith her mother. Dharampal and Dalip were in the room. They heard of a jeep being parked outside the house. She alongwith her mother peeped into the room and witnessed that Dharampal was being caught by Madan and Dalip by Rai singh. On intervention by her mother, accused Madan kicked her in the stomach. Dalip and Dharampal made way and ran away. The accused persons Krishna, mahaveer, Bhagirath, Kuldeep, Inder sen, Ramswaroop, Ranveer etc. chased dharampal and Dalip in the jeep. On an open plot in front of the house of P. W. 1 jagdish, Rai Singh dashed the jeep against Dharampal on account of which he fell down. Krishna gave a lathi blow on the head of Dalip. All the accused persons mounted attack on Dalip and dharampal. She also stated that accused madan was not present in the Court. The accused persons threw Dharampal and dalip in the jeep and speeded up the same. Thereafter, her brothers were not seen until their dead bodies were found. In the cross-examination, she admitted that P. W. 1 Jagdish was the grand-son of her uncle Kana Ram. On being confronted, she stated that in Ex. D. 8 in spite of the fact that she had made a statement that Dharampal was being caught by madan and Dalip by Rai Singh, the police had not recorded the same. Similarly, she had stated about the fact of Madan giving kick in the stomach of her mother but the same has not been recorded in ex. D. 8. She also stated that there is a pond in between their house and the plot in front of house of Jagdish. The length and breadth of the pond is about one-and-half bighas. The water of the tank is being used for drinking by animals. On the date of the incident also, there was water in the tank. She also stated that she gave out the names of the accused persons viz; Krishna, Mahaveer, Bhagirath, kuldeep, Indersen, Ramswaroop, Ranjeet who were standing near the jeep armed with lathis but the said fact does not find place in Ex. On the date of the incident also, there was water in the tank. She also stated that she gave out the names of the accused persons viz; Krishna, Mahaveer, Bhagirath, kuldeep, Indersen, Ramswaroop, Ranjeet who were standing near the jeep armed with lathis but the said fact does not find place in Ex. D. 8. She also stated that before her mother left for Chautala. P. W. 1 jagdish had arrived at their residence. Shortly after her mother left for Chautala, jagdish also left the house. He did not return in the night. He was seen only on the next day. ( 11 ) P. W. 13 Mahaveer is the son-in-law of p. W. 11 Smt. Guddi. He stated that at about 9 P. M. , his mother-in-law Mst. Guddi arrived at his residence in village chautala. She disclosed that her two sons dharampal and Dalip have been abducted by Rai Singh, Madan, Krishna, Bhagirath, kuldeep, Indersen, Ramswaroop, mahaveer. He accompanied her mother-in-law to the Police Station, Sangaria. The F. I. R. was lodged by her mother-in-law at the Police Station, Sangaria. ( 12 ) P. W. 3. Saraswati and P. W. 4 praveen Kumar are the neighbours but they did not support the prosecution case and, as such, they were declared hostile. P. W. 2 Omprakash has also not supported the prosecution case and, as such, he was also declared hostile. However, he stated that the distance between the house of p. W. 1 Jagdish and P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi is about 1km. He also stated that if one stands at the house of P. W. 1 Jagdish, he/ she cannot see anything happening in the house of Mst. Guddi. ( 13 ) P. W. 5 Rameshwar is the father of deceased Dharampal and Dalip. He stated that at the time of incident, he was at Head-365. On the next day, he reached to his village at about 12 Noon. Mst. Saroji narrated the entire incident to him. ( 14 ) P. W. 7 Lal Chand is a motbir witness of recovery of pieces of lathis. He has not supported the prosecution case. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 Herpal is a neighbour. He has also not supported the prosecution case. P. W. 10 is the carrier of the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory. P. W. 14 Budh Ram is Sub-Inspector, police Station, Sangaria. He has not supported the prosecution case. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 Herpal is a neighbour. He has also not supported the prosecution case. P. W. 10 is the carrier of the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory. P. W. 14 Budh Ram is Sub-Inspector, police Station, Sangaria. He has verified the fact of filing of F. I. R. Ex. D. 4 by P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi. . ( 16 ) P. W. 15 Bhan Singh was in-charge of the Police Station, Sangaria at the relevant time. P. W. 16 Sawal Singh godara has stated that under the orders of the higher authorities, the investigation was transferred to him in September 1997. P. W. 17 Surendra Kumar is a photographer. P. W. 18 Nath Singh is a formal police witness. P. W. 19 Rajpal Singh has given the details of the investigation. In the cross-examination, he admitted that between the house of P. W. 1 Jagdish and that of Mst. Guddi, there is a tank around the lake, the sand wall and huge trees. The house of Jagdish is not visible from the house of P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi. He also admitted that accused viz; Sahab ram and Madanlal, whose names were mentioned in the F. I. R. , were found innocent and, as such, the Final Report was forwarded. P. W. 20 Narain Singh is another formal police witness, so as P. W. 21 jai Kishan Soni. ( 17 ) ON close examination of the testimony of P. W. 1 Jagdish, P. . W. 11 Mst. Guddi and P. W. 12 Mst. Saroj, we do not consider it safe to place reliance on any of them for more than one reasons. ( 18 ) P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi is the author of F. I. R. Ex. D. 4. She has substantially changed her version given in the Court from what she gave out in the F. I. R. As per the version given in the F. I. R. accused sahab Ram and Madan, both sons of ganpat Ram, arrived on a motor-cycle and a jeep alongwith six unidentified persons. His son Dalip, who was sleeping in. the room outside the house, was lifted and taken away in the jeep. When she tried to intervene, she was being threatened of dire consequences. While deposing in the court, she has completely exonerated madan and Sahab Ram. His son Dalip, who was sleeping in. the room outside the house, was lifted and taken away in the jeep. When she tried to intervene, she was being threatened of dire consequences. While deposing in the court, she has completely exonerated madan and Sahab Ram. So far as Madan is concerned, the police has given the final Report. As far as Sahab Ram is concerned, she stated in the court that she had wrongly mentioned the name of sahab Ram. It may be stated that she has not only given out the name of Sahab Ram wrongly but also his fathers name as ganpat in the F. I. R. The fathers name of appellant Rai Singh is Ram Narain. The specific case as set up in F. I. R. is that Dalip alone was in the room, Madan pounced on him. He alone was being abducted. Dharampal had gone to village and did not return but in court, she stated that Dalip and Dharampal were in the room outside the house. Not only this, she has also assigned specific role to madan and Rai Singh by saying that dharampal was caught by Madan and dalip by Rai Singh. She not only exonerated Madan and Sahab Ram, whom she has assigned the main role, but six unidentified persons were identified as person known to her for more than three years as appellants Mahaveer, Ranveer, ramswaroop, Indersen, Kishan and bhagirath. In Mahesh Chandra v. State reported in AIR 1991 SC 1388 , the Apex court found the evidence of the eye-witness not trustworthy where, in the F. I. R. , names of the accused persons were not mentioned, though the witnesses during trial claimed to have known and seen the accused persons. As regards the second part of the incident regarding which not a word was uttered by her in the F. I. R, she stated that the accused persons rounded her both the sons on the open plot on other side of the tank. She also stated that Rai Singh dashed jeep against dharampal on account of which he fell down. Both her sons were abducted from there by the accused persons. They were not seen alive thereafter. She also stated that Rai Singh dashed jeep against dharampal on account of which he fell down. Both her sons were abducted from there by the accused persons. They were not seen alive thereafter. This is clearly an improvement made by her from the earlier version given in the F. I. R. As per the statement of P. W. 2 Omprakash, the distance between the house of P. W. 1 jagdish and P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi is about 1 km. It has also been admitted by P. W. 19 rajpal Singh, investigating officer, that from the house of P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi, the open plot and the house of P. W. 1 Jagdish are not visible. In between the houses, there is a big tank around, sand wall and also huge trees. Thus, she could not have witnessed the second part of the incident. If she would have witnessed the second part of the incident, there was no reason not to have narrated the said crucial part while lodging the F. I. R. Thus, it is evident that till she lodged the F. I. R. , her knowledge of the incident was only to the extent of abduction of her son Dalip by some unknown persons. According to her, at that time, even Dharampal had gone to village and not returned. For the same reason, P. W. 12 Mst. Saroj could have also not witnessed the second part of the incident on open plot in front of the house of P. W. 1 Jagdish. If she would have witnessed the incident, it could not have missed in the F. I. R. As far as P. W. 1 jagdish is concerned, he stated that he immediately rushed to the house of Mst. Guddi and narrated the incident as to abduction of Dalip and Dharampal in the jeep by the accused persons. If he would have really witnessed the incident and narrated it to Mst. Guddi, there was absolutely no reason that the said material part of the statement would not have found place in the F. I. R. Otherwise also, the conduct of this witness is unnatural. He has admitted that he did not stay at the house of P. W. 1 Mst. Guddi. He returned to his bouse and remained busy in his work. Only next day in afternoon when Police visited the spot, he narrated the incident. He has admitted that he did not stay at the house of P. W. 1 Mst. Guddi. He returned to his bouse and remained busy in his work. Only next day in afternoon when Police visited the spot, he narrated the incident. When these witnesses were confronted with their omissions in their earlier statements, they simply stated that they had given such statement but the same might not have been recorded by the police. P. W. 19 Rajpal Singh has stated that he truthfully recorded the statements as of P. W. 1 Jagdish, P. W. 11 mst. Guddi and P. W. 12 Mst. Saroj, as given by them. Similarly, P. W. 15 Bhan Singh stated that he had recorded the F. I. R. as narrated by P. W. 11 Mst. Guddi. In this state of affairs, the evidence of all the three witnesses does not inspire confidence. ( 19 ) IT is further significant to notice that the motive attributed to the appellants by the prosecution is that the grand-father of. Madanlal i. e. Puran Ram was allegedly murdered by deceased dharampal but he was acquitted by the court, as such, the accused persons were unhappy with him. In this regard, the police has found no case against Madan lal and, as such, he has not been arrayed as an accused. Another son of Ganpat ram viz; Sahab Ram is not an accused in this case. In absence of Madan and sahab Ram, no motive can be attributed to present appellants. ( 20 ) AS far as the recovery is concerned, there is no evidence to connect the piece of pant with the crime as it has not been identified as that of the deceased. Similarly, the evidence of recovery has been found to be incriminating only against Rai Singh and none else. The recovery of three pieces of lathis is also not creditworthy, as the same were recovered from open place. Be that as it may, even this single piece of circumstance cannot be held incriminating against the appellants, more particularly when substratum of the entire case has not been found to be trustworthy. The recovery of three pieces of lathis is also not creditworthy, as the same were recovered from open place. Be that as it may, even this single piece of circumstance cannot be held incriminating against the appellants, more particularly when substratum of the entire case has not been found to be trustworthy. ( 21 ) THUS, having examined the entire evidence on record scrupulously and meticulously, we regret to say that the entire evidence is nothing but a coloured version of concocted story and exaggerated account mixed with falsehood and the prosecution has miserably failed to account the charges against the appellants or any of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. We have no hesitation in holding that the trial Court has committed serious error in convicting the appellants on the testimony of three eye-witnesses referred to above. Thus, the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged, is not sustainable. ( 22 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria dated 19/12/2002 convicting appellants for various offences is set aside. All the accused appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.