JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Appellant-accused Dauji was tried (In S.T. No. 246 of 2001) for a charge under Section 308 I.P.C. and the Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Aligarh by judgment and order dated 29.9.2005 found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. 2. That brings the appellant here. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.8.1999, around 7.00 O’clock in the evening, in village Karthala when P.W. 1 injured person Girraj was sitting on a cot infront of the house of Ram Gopal Mallah, accused Dauji came there, hurling abuses and delivered a Lathi blow on the head of P.W. 1 Girraj, causing injury on his head, in consequence whereof, he fell down on the ground. The incident was seen by P.W. 2 Raghuvir Singh and P.W. 4 Har Charan Singh, who rescued the injured person. 4. A written report of the occurrence was lodged by the elder brother of the injured P.W. 3 Nandan Singh, at police station Iglas on 26.8.1999 at 8.30 p.m. 5. The police on basis of written report registered a case under Section 308, I.P.C. against the accused, the investigation of which was assigned to P.W. 5 S.I. Brij Mohan Gautam. 6. Injured Girraj was initially examined at Primary Health Centre Iglas, where- from he was referred to District Hospital, Aligarh, where P.W. 7 Dr. Nagendra Prasad, found the following injury on his person, vide injury report Ex. Ka-7 as noted below: “Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x scalp deep, surrounded with contusion, 4 cm x 5 cm on left side head, 5 cm above left ear. Patient has vomited 20 times till now. Semi conscious, pupils dilated. Reaction to light sluggish. Pulse 70 p/m. Respiration 16 p/m. B.P. 100/80 mm Hg. G.C. Poor.” He was advised X-ray of his injuries. The injured was thereafter treated at Medical College, Hospital at Aligarh, where P.W. 6 Dr. V.K. Srivastava on the basis of the X-ray report gave the following diagnosis. “EDH adjacent to left temporal parietal bone wish localised skin in left temporal parietal region with fracture Occipital bone. Left temporal bone with depressed fracture with left parietal bone with soft tissue swelling”. 7. V.K. Srivastava on the basis of the X-ray report gave the following diagnosis. “EDH adjacent to left temporal parietal bone wish localised skin in left temporal parietal region with fracture Occipital bone. Left temporal bone with depressed fracture with left parietal bone with soft tissue swelling”. 7. The investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and after the completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet under Section 308, I.P.C. against the accused. 8. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined injured person P.W. 1 Girraj Singh, P.W. 2 Raghubir, P.W. 3 Nandan Singh, P.W. 4 Har Charan Singh, P.W. 5 S.I. Brij Mohan Gautam, P.W. 6 Prof. Dr. V.K. Srivastava and P.W. 7 Dr. Nagendra Prasad. 9. In his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the case of the accused was of plain and simple denial. He examined none in his defence evidence. 10. The Trial Sessions Judge found the prosecution witnesses dependable, and held the accused guilty as noted above. 11. Heard Dr. Abida Syed, amicus curiae for the accused-appellant and Sri R.K. Shukla, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 12. It is the testimony of three eye witnesses, P.W. 1 Girraj , P.W. 2 Raghubir and P.W. 4 Har Charan, which is to be assessed and examined. P.W. 1 the injured Girraj has stated that he was sitting at the house of Ram Gopal at the particular time, when the accused appeared from behind and gave Lathi blow on his head and also abused him. He further says that the blow made him unconscious and he fell down. 13. P.W. 2 Raghuvir is said to be a witness of the occurrence and he says that he was passing that way when he saw the accused coming and the accused abused the injured person (P.W. 1) and gave a Lathi blow on his head. He further says that he reprimanded the accused and tried to rescue the injured person. He further says that he and the other persons apprehended the accused at the spot and took him to the Ex-Pradhan of the village Jwala Singh, and the Pradhan thereafter, called the police and handed over the accused to the police. He further says that he reprimanded the accused and tried to rescue the injured person. He further says that he and the other persons apprehended the accused at the spot and took him to the Ex-Pradhan of the village Jwala Singh, and the Pradhan thereafter, called the police and handed over the accused to the police. He further says that the report was written then and there, in the village while P.W.3 Nandan Singh, the brother of P.W. 1, says that the report was written at the police station Iglas. P.W. 4 Har Charan Singh also says that he was passing that way when he saw the accused coming with a Lathi in his hand and struck the same on the head of P.W. 1 Girraj and also abused him. 14. It is important to note that this witness (P.W. 4) says that hitting the injured person, accused ran away and was not apprehended while P.W. 2 Raghuvir has stated that the accused was nabbed at the spot and taken to the Ex-Pradhan of the village, where he was handed over to the police. This is a significant contradiction, which exposes the un-veracity of the version. 15. What is still more important, is that P.W. 1 injured person has said in his statement that no other person was present there when the accused came with assaulted him, while P.W. 2 Raghuvir and P.W. 4 Har Charan Singh, say that they saw the occurrence. The statement of P.W. 1 injured, therefore, strikes at the very root of the statement of P.W. 2 Raghuvir and P.W. 4 Har Charan Singh is clearly indicative of the fact that they are fake witnesses. 16. It is surprising to see that the Trial Sessions Judge has glossed over all these anomalies in the evidence, and all these significant variations and contradictions, still relieved, upon the prosecution evidence. The mere fact that the deceased had sustained an injury, is not by itself, sufficient to indicate that it was caused by the accused. This has to be proved by evidence, and if the evidence is lack-luster, and prima-facie undependable bristling with contradictions and infirmities, mere tact of the injured, having sustained the injury, will not, by itself prove the prosecution version. 17. There is still more reason to doubt the authenticity of the prosecution version. This has to be proved by evidence, and if the evidence is lack-luster, and prima-facie undependable bristling with contradictions and infirmities, mere tact of the injured, having sustained the injury, will not, by itself prove the prosecution version. 17. There is still more reason to doubt the authenticity of the prosecution version. No motive for the assault has been mentioned in the first information report. Even in the evidence, there is not a single word to indicate, as to why, the accused, assaulted P.W. 1 Girraj Singh. The injured P.W.1 himself says that he does not, even today knows why the accused abused him, and assaulted him. 18. It is true that where direct eye-witness testimony is available, motive looses its significance, but even then, the human mind remains unsatisfied, pondering all the time, why the assault was mounted. Motive has a corroborative value, and if motive is absent, an important source of corroboration stands blocked, and the oral evidence is not available, to obtain corroboration from that source. In a situation like this, evidence un-corroborated by motive, has to be firm and convincing, leaving no room for doubts and suspicion. The evidence as indicated above, is virtually in shambles and the numerous contradictions and infirmities, as pointed out, render it wholly unworthy of reliance. 19. The Trial Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting the accused who deserves to be acquitted. 20. Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Sessions Judge, Aligarh is set aside. Accused Dauji is acquitted of the charge under Section 308, I.P.C. He is in jail. He need not be detained unless required in some other case. He be released forthwith. Release warrant be issued immediately, (Case Crime No. 467 of 1999 P.S. Iglas District Aligarh). 21. A copy of this judgment be sent, by the office post-haste immediately by post as well as by Fax, to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh for information and compliance. 22. Since Dr. Abida Syed has been appointed an Amicus Curiae. The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed as rupees seven thousand five hundred. ————