JUDGMENT 1. - The burial of a child, the death of Harchand, forms the background of this appeal. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 29.10.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Sikar Camp, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149, 323 read with Section 149, 148 and 447 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short). 2. For offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and have been imposed with a fine have been sentenced to life imprisonment and have been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 325 read with Section 149, they have been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and have been imposed with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 232 read with Section 149, they have been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 148 of IPC, they have been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 447, they have been sentenced to one month of rigorous imprisonment. 3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that on 25.03.1998, the police recorded the statements of Kishan (P.W. 1), wherein he stated that his brother Harchand had lost a small child, aged about one and a half months. They had buried the child in the field. Around 6 o' clock in the morning, Vimla started abusing them. Vimla demanded that the body of the child should be taken out from the field or otherwise her family would exhume the body and throw it away. Upon this, the complainant, Kishan, his brother, harchand and the complainant's wife, Gulabi went to the place where the child was buried. There, they fond Prakash, armed with an axe, banshi armed with lathies (bamboo sticks). He further claimed that Banshi hit him over the head with the axe; Prakash hit his father's leg, with kasiya; Harphool hi the complainant over the head with an axe; Vimla hit harchand on his waist with a lathi. Consequently, Harchand fell, Gulabi was hit by Kaushalya with lathies. After this, all of the accused persons started beating them up. He further claimed that Banshi hit him over the head with the axe; Prakash hit his father's leg, with kasiya; Harphool hi the complainant over the head with an axe; Vimla hit harchand on his waist with a lathi. Consequently, Harchand fell, Gulabi was hit by Kaushalya with lathies. After this, all of the accused persons started beating them up. He further alleged that the injured persons were taken to Neem-Ka-Thana Hospital on the camel cart belonging to Satar. On the basis of this statement, a formal FIR (Ex. P/47) was registered at the police station. Since Harchand died, during the course of treatment, the FIR was registered for offence under Section 148, 447, 323/149, 325/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of IPC. The police filed a charge-sheet against seven accused persons. However, during the course of the trial, Banshiram expired on 16.04.2002. Therefore, the trial abated against him. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and submitted fifty documents. On the other hand, the appellants did not examine any single witness in defence, but they did submit nine documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge acquitted Smt. Santosh and Smt. Mishri for the aforementioned offences, but convicted the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Praveen Balwada, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised various contentions before this Court: firstly, the prosecution has improved its story. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses are unreliable. According to the FIR, Vimla is attributed with an overt act of hitting the deceased, harchand, on his waist. However, in the testimonies, the eye-witnesses claimed that Prakash had hit harchand over the head with an axe. Secondly, he prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Thirdly, the testimony of the interested witnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In fact, their testimony is bellied by the medical evidence. Fourthly, the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries sustained by the appellants. Fifthly, since both the sides received injuries, it was clearly a case of free fight. Therefore, the offence under Section 149 IPC is not made out. Sixthly, there is no evidence to prove as to who cause the death of Harchand. Lastly, that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. Mr. Fifthly, since both the sides received injuries, it was clearly a case of free fight. Therefore, the offence under Section 149 IPC is not made out. Sixthly, there is no evidence to prove as to who cause the death of Harchand. Lastly, that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. Mr. B.N. Sandhu, the learned Public Prosecutor, has counter argued: firstly, the injured witnesses cannot be doubted as they had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. Secondly, their improvement, if any, is not of such a great extent as to create doubt on the story of the prosecution. Thirdly, in a fray, it is difficult for the witnesses to attribute overt acts to individual persons. Fourthly, the prosecution has proved the kernel of the story. Therefore, he has supported the impugned judgment. 6. We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties, have perused the impugned judgment and have examined the record produced before this Court. 7. In order to establish its case, the prosecution had examined Kishan Lal (P.W. 1), Smt. Gulab Devi (P.W. 2) and Ganpat (P.W. 3). It is not in dispute that these three witnesses were related to the deceased. Hence, they are interested witnesses. Of course, the evidence of an interested witness cannot and should not be discarded on the ground of being related to the victim. But prudence demands that a cautious approach be adopted while assessing the veracity and credibility of the testimony of such a witness. In the case of State of U.P. V/s. Rasid and Ors. 2003(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 165: (2003) 9 SCC 449 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while dealing with the evidence of interested witness, a cautious approach is required. Hence, this principle has to be borne in mind while analyzing the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses. 8. A bare perusal of the testimony of Kishan Lal (P.W. 1), Gulab Devi (P.W. 2), Ganpat (P.W. 3) clearly reveals that they have improved in their testimony in the Court from the statement given by them to the police. Kish Lal, in his statement under Section 161 had merely stated that "Vimla hit Harchand on his waist". In his statement, he nowhere attributes any injury to Prakash. Yet, in his testimony, he claims that Prakash had hit Harchand over the head with an axe. Kish Lal, in his statement under Section 161 had merely stated that "Vimla hit Harchand on his waist". In his statement, he nowhere attributes any injury to Prakash. Yet, in his testimony, he claims that Prakash had hit Harchand over the head with an axe. Confronted with this glaring omission, in his cross-examination, he merely claims that he had informed the police about Prakash hitting the deceased over the head with an axe, but he does not know as to why the police did not record his statement correctly. Similarly, Gulab devi (P.W. 2) and Ganpat (P.W. 3) have improved their statements. In fact, they have custom tailored their testimony of the complainant, Kishan Lal. 9. In case, these witnesses knew the fact that Prakash had hit the deceased over the head with an axe, there is no reason why the said fact was not revealed by them to the police when their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, clearly they have improved the story in order to falsely implicate Prakash and through him to falsely implicate the other appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149. 10. Moreover, while P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 claim that Prakash had hit the deceased with an axe, the post-mortem report (Ex. P/41) shows that the deceased did not sustain any sharp edged injury. Therefore, the testimony of the interested witnesses is contradicted and bellied by the medical evidence. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained five injuries, which are as under - "(1) Swelling of size 3 x 3 cm on Rt. parietal region. (2) Bruise 3 x 1/2 cm. redish in colour, placed, vertically on Rt. Side back of chest upper ⅓rd. (3) Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm. present on Lt. Side back of chest, upper ⅓rd. (4) Abrasion, 4 x 1/2 cm. present on Rt. thing middle ⅓rd antero laterally. (5) Multiple abrasions of size 1 x 1/2cm to 1/4and 1/4cm. present on Rt. shoulder posteriorly, dorsum of Rt. elbow, dorsum of Lt. elbow and medial aspect of Lt. wrist joint. All above mentioned injuries are antemortem in nature." Clearly, these injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the statements of the three witnesses mentioned above is not corroborated by the post-mortem report. 11. The prosecution had also produced Gomaram (P.W. 4), Satar (P.W. 5) and Chauthmal (P.W. 6) as independent witnesses. elbow and medial aspect of Lt. wrist joint. All above mentioned injuries are antemortem in nature." Clearly, these injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the statements of the three witnesses mentioned above is not corroborated by the post-mortem report. 11. The prosecution had also produced Gomaram (P.W. 4), Satar (P.W. 5) and Chauthmal (P.W. 6) as independent witnesses. However, Gomaram (P.W. 4) and Satar (P.W. 5) have turned hostile. Although, Chauthmal (P.W. 6) has supported the case of the prosecution, but even he claims that Prakash had hit the deceased over the head with an axe. Therefore, like the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, even testimony of Chauthmal (P.W. 6) contradicted by the post-mortem report. It is indeed trite to state that "men may lie, but circumstances do not". In the present case, although the witnesses are making the untruthful statement before the Court, the post-mortem report clearly reveals that the deceased was hit by blunt weapons and not by sharp edged weapons. For these reasons, it is difficult to rely on the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6. 12. Moreover, despite the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 attributing a sharp edged injuries to Prakash, no sharpedged weapon has been recovered from Prakash. During the course of investigation, the police has recovered lathi (bamboo stick) from him. Therefore, their testimony is not corroborated by the recovery. 13. The testimonies of these witnesses are further weakened by the fact that they have not explained the injuries sustained by the appellants. According to exhibits D-5, D-6, D-7 and D-9, Banshi Lal, Smt. Mishri, Smt. Vimla and Harphool respectively were also injured. According to the injury report. Likewise, Smt. Mishri had also received a lacerated wound on the parietal bone. According to Ex. D/9 Harphool had received a lacerated wound on the left fronto-parietal region. 14. Exhibits D-5, D-6 and D-9 clearly prove that the prosecution is not coming with clean hand. Secondly, it is a case of free fight between the complainant party and the appellants. The factum of free fight is further corroborated by the fact that according to the complainant it is they who buried the child in the field, which was objected to by the appellants. Secondly, it is a case of free fight between the complainant party and the appellants. The factum of free fight is further corroborated by the fact that according to the complainant it is they who buried the child in the field, which was objected to by the appellants. It is the complainant, who had gone armed to the field and had caused injuries to the appellants. Moreover, the appellants had also lodged a FIR (Ex. D/8) against the complainants on the same day for offence under Sections 307, 323, and 452 IPC. Thus, clearly there was a cross case from both the sides. Exhibits D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8 and D-9, thus, clearly prove that a free fight had broken out between the two parties. Hence, the offence under Section 149 IPC is not made out against the appellants. 15. In the present case, the prosecution has not come with clean hands. Since the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries caused to the appellants, the prosecution has not revealed the genesis of the occurrence. Secondly, the prosecution has deliberately withheld Ex. D/8, the FIR lodged by the appellants, in order to hide the fact of free fight between the two parties from the trial Court. Thirdly the improvement made by the prosecution witnesses clearly show that the witnesses have no respect for truth. It is not just sufficient for the prosecution to allege the commission of crime, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to travel the long distance between "may be true and must be true". However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to cover the long distance. 16. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated October 29, 2003 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Sikar Camp, Neem-Ka-Thana. We acquit the appellants Harphool, Smt. Vimla, Smt. Kaushalya and Prakash of the charges under Sections 148, 47, 302/149, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. The appellants Smt. Vimla and Smt. Kaushalya are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. Appellants Harphool and Prakash, who are in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******