P. V. HARDA8, J.:- Appellants who stand convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and 447 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- each, with default condition of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for six months and R.I. for one month and fine of Rs.500/- each, with default condition and further R.I., in the event of non-payment of fine for the respective offences, by learned II Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, by judgment and order dated 31 st December, 2004 in Sessions Case No.82/2004, by this appeal, questions the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. Such of the facts, as are necessary for decision of this appeal, may be briefly stated thus: PW-10 Manohar Jadhav, a Police Head Constable attached to Police Station. Pahur, received an intimation from the Medical Officer of Rural Hospital, Pahur, about admission of one Bhagwat Pandhare at about 4.30 a.m. PW10 Head Constable Jadhav was further informed that the said Bhagwat had succumbed to his injuries. The aforesaid intimation is at Exh.29. On the strength of said admission at Exh.29, an accidental death came to be registered at Sr. No.9/2004 at the said Police Station. The enquiry in respect of accidental death was, therefore, entrusted to PW -11 ASI Laxman Patil. ASI Laxman Patil, on being entrusted with the enquiry in respect of accidental death of deceased Bhagwat, proceeded to the scene of offence and drew the scene of offence panch nama at Exh.23 in presence of PW-2 Prakash Deshmukh. The said scene of offence was allegedly shown to PW-6 Raju, whom prosecution claims to be an eye-witness. From the scene of the offence, a white rope vide article "A" came to be seized. Inquest Panch nama at Exh.21 came to be prepared in presence of PWI Haridas. Dead body of deceased was referred for post-mortem examination and post-mortem was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Sameena Habib Khan. PW-4 Habib Khan found that there were no external injuries on the dead body. On internal examination, she noticed that lungs were congested and stomach contained digested food material with offensive smell. She accordingly expressed her opinion that deceased died as a result of some unknown poisoning. The postmortem report is at Exh.27. Sameena Habib Khan. PW-4 Habib Khan found that there were no external injuries on the dead body. On internal examination, she noticed that lungs were congested and stomach contained digested food material with offensive smell. She accordingly expressed her opinion that deceased died as a result of some unknown poisoning. The postmortem report is at Exh.27. The viscera which was preserved, was forwarded to the Chemical Analyser and Chemical Analysers report at Exh.28 shows that viscera contained organo chloro insecticide commonly known as Endosulphan. It was also opined that the level which was detected in the viscera was a fatal dose involving cases of poisoning by Endo-sulphan. PW-1 ASI Laxman thereafter, entrusted the investigation to PW-12 Rameshsingh Pardeshi, an API, who was attached to Pahur Police Station. On the same day, in the evening. PW- 5 Ganesh, real brother of deceased Bhagwat, came to the Police Station and lodged his in complaint at Exh.32. On the strength of the said complaint lodged by PW-5 Ganesh, an offence vide Crime No.2712004 under sections 302, 448. 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered at 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, PW -12 ASI Pardeshi recorded statements of witnesses. On 1.4.2004, he arrested all the accused and during custodial interrogation of appellant-Manoj, appellant Manoj expressed his willingness, in the presence of a PW -3 Anil, to point out the place where tin of Endo-sulphan was kept. Accordingly, s memorandum at Exh.46 came to be drawn. The s accused took the Panch and the Police to the place of his residence. Accused-Manoj, on c entering the house produced one steel container r which was kept beneath the cot. The said t container of capacity of one litre, came to be attached vide seizure memo at Exh.25. The said tin of Endo-sulphan is article "B". Statements of witnesses under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be recorded. The seized articles were forwarded along with requisition at Exh.48, to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the Chemical analyser in respect of the contents of the tin containing poison is at Exh.49. The report of the Chemical Analyser shows that the contents of the said tin were organo chloro insecticide commonly known as Endo-sulphan. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellants came to be filed. 4. The report of the Chemical analyser in respect of the contents of the tin containing poison is at Exh.49. The report of the Chemical Analyser shows that the contents of the said tin were organo chloro insecticide commonly known as Endo-sulphan. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellants came to be filed. 4. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial Court vide Exh.14 framed charge against the appellants. All the accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses. The trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellants as afore-stated. 5. The prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of PW-6 Raju, son of the deceased Bhagwati; PW-8 Dhondu, who was working in the adjoining field. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for respective parties, it would be useful to briefly refer to the testimony of PW-6 Raju. Undisputedly, relations between deceased Bhagwat and appellant nos.1 and 2, who are the brothers of deceased Bhagwat, were strained. Appellant No.3 is stated to be the nephew of appellant nos.1 and 2. It appears that there was a dispute between the appellants and deceased Bhagwat in respect of the boundary of the agricultural field. PW-6 Raju, son of deceased Bhagwat, states that he was studying in VII standard at the time of the incident. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 30.3.2004. On the said night, he had accompanied his father deceased Bhagwat to the agricultural filed. PW -6 Raj u was sleeping and was awakened on hearing the shouts of his father. On being awakened he had noticed that his father deceased Bhagwat was tied by the appellants to a plough with a rope, which was used for tieing bullocks. Appellant nos.1 and 2 caught hold of the limbs of his father, while appellant no.3 had administered poison to Bhagwat. The poison which was administered to Bhagwat was in the hands of appellant no.3-Manoj. According to Raju, after the poison was administered to his father, deceased Bhagwat started shouting and on hearing his cries. PW -8 Dhondu, arrived at the scene of the offence. With the assistance of Dhondu. PW-6 Raju untied the rope with which his father had been tied. According to Raju, after the poison was administered to his father, deceased Bhagwat started shouting and on hearing his cries. PW -8 Dhondu, arrived at the scene of the offence. With the assistance of Dhondu. PW-6 Raju untied the rope with which his father had been tied. In the examination-in-chief itself, a startling admission is given by this witness which is reproduced as below: "My father consumed poison without offering resistance and voluntarily, as there was dispute in between my father and the accused persons over the field property. I cannot assign any reason why my father shouted at that time." In cross-examination, on behalf of the appellants, this witness has admitted that he was awakened as his father had started shouting. He had admitted as correct that his father had started shouting after he had consumed poison. He has also admitted that his father consumed poison, and had started shouting and it was thereafter PW-6 Raju was awakened. In further cross-examination, the omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in the statement during investigation that the accused had tied his father to the plough. This according to us, is a material omission amounting to contradiction. Apart from that, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that 4-5 days after the funeral of his father, police had interrogated him again. He has admitted that he was interrogated about 4 to 5 days after the funeral and his statement was recorded. He has then admitted as correct that when he was awakened he found that his father was rolling on the ground jerking his hands and legs and was shouting. 6. We are in agreement with the criticism advanced by learned counsel for the appellants in respect of this witness. Learned counsel for the appellants have urged before us that in view of prevaricating statements made by this witness, it is extremely unsafe to place reliance on his testimony. PW-6 is Raju is a child witness. PW -6 Raju pointed out the scene of offence when the scene of offence Panchnama came to be recorded at Exh.23. The scene of the offence Panch nama was recorded early in the morning and the Police were present in the village for the purposes of enquiry into the accidental death of Bhagwat. Apart from, Raju, none else from his family had disclosed the incident to the police. The scene of the offence Panch nama was recorded early in the morning and the Police were present in the village for the purposes of enquiry into the accidental death of Bhagwat. Apart from, Raju, none else from his family had disclosed the incident to the police. In the light of that, therefore, according to us, it would be extremely hazardous to place implicit reliance on the testimony of PW-6 Raju. 7. The prosecution has examined Dhondu (PW-8) who claims to have been present in the adjoining field and who claims to have rushed to the field of Bhagwat on hearing his cries. PW-8 Dhondu states that he heard the shouts. (Dhondu uncle) and thereafter he had taken the torch and had gone to the field of deceased Bhagwat and, in the illumination of the torch, he had seen the appellants 1 to 3 fleeing from the scene. He then went towards deceased Bhagwat and on enquiry, he was informed by Bhagwat that the appellants had administered poison to him. Dhondu claims to have asked Bhagwat the reason for administration of poison and Bhagwat is alleged to have informed him about a certain discord between him and his brothers on account of boundary of the agricultural field. Bhagwat also disclosed to him that appellant Ramesh had threatened Bhagwat to drink poison otherwise the poison would be administered to his son PW-6. Deceased Bhagwat was carried to his house and deceased Bhagwat had also narrated about the incident to his wife, who is examined as PW -7 Shenfadabai. In cross-examination, he has admitted that on 31.3.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., the police had interrogated him at Gram Panchayat Office at Wakod and had reduced into writing his statement. Perusal of his evidence clearly indicates that he too like PW-6 Raju had remained silent and had not informed the police when the police were present in the village for the purposes of enquiry. The conduct of this witness and that of PW-6 Raju is wholly unnatural. The aforesaid statement impels us not to place any reliance whatsoever on the testimony of these witnesses. Coupled with this, the post-mortem report also does not disclose any ligature marks around the legs and hands of the deceased. The absence of ligature mark, therefore, clearly rules out the case of the prosecution that the hands and legs of deceased Bhagwat had been tied. Coupled with this, the post-mortem report also does not disclose any ligature marks around the legs and hands of the deceased. The absence of ligature mark, therefore, clearly rules out the case of the prosecution that the hands and legs of deceased Bhagwat had been tied. Coupled with this, Raju PW-6 had admitted in his cross-examination that when he was awakened, he had seen his father rolling on the ground. If that be the case, the said admission also rules out any possibility of hands and feet of deceased Bhagwat being tied. In the cross-examination, Shenfadabai (PW-7), wife of deceased Bhagwat, states that on the day of the incident at about 2.00 a.m. PW-6 Raju and PW-8 Dhondu had brought her husband Bhagwat inside the house. At that time, deceased h Bhagwat had disclosed to her that poison had been administered to him. PW-8 Dhondu had been despatched for summoning Medical Officer. Thereafter, Bhagwat was shifted to a Hospital. Shenfadabai, further, states that a deceased Bhagwat had disclosed to her that the f accused had threatened him that if does not consume poison, the accused would administer r the said poison to his son i.e. PW-6 Raju and, therefore, Bhagwat was compelled to consume poison. On the advice of one Dr. Shankar Bhagwat was shifted to the Government Hospital at Pahur, where he was pronounced dead. In cross-examination she has admitted that she had not informed the Police when she had gone to Pahur. She states that after the Medical Officer had declared his husband dead, she was asked to sit in an auto rickshaw and was sent back to village Wakod. She claims to have been unconscious for nearly two days. The aforesaid statement, according to us, is completely unbelievable as funeral of the deceased Bhagwat was performed on the next day and neither PW-6 Raju nor PW-8 Dhondu depose about the unconsciousness of this witness. She has further admitted that after the funeral of her husband, the Police had been to Wakod on the same day. She claims that the police had interrogated her and at that time had disclosed the incident to the Police. This nullifies her statement that she was unconscious for two days. 8. She has further admitted that after the funeral of her husband, the Police had been to Wakod on the same day. She claims that the police had interrogated her and at that time had disclosed the incident to the Police. This nullifies her statement that she was unconscious for two days. 8. The stoic silence of all the witnesses though they were closely related to the deceased in not disclosing the incident to the police at the first available opportunity, speaks about the falsity of the claim which is set up by the witnesses. The Police had arrived at the scene in connection with the enquiry relating to accidental death. PW-7 Shenfadabai is the wife of deceased Bhagwat; while PW-6 Raju is the son of the deceased Bhagwat. Neither of them thought it appropriate to tell the Police about the incident particularly when the police had questioned them. This factor and other circumstances to which we have highlighted above, impels us to disbelieve the prosecution version. In our considered opinion, therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant/accused, thus, are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Mere finding of a tin containing insecticide at the behest of the appellant-Manoj by itself, would not be enough. It is not uncommon to find insecticide being stored by the agriculturists in their houses. Merely because the insecticide which was found i.e. Endo-sulphan is the same poison which is alleged to have been administered to the deceased, is no ground for segregating the case of appellant-Manoj and treating it differently. In our considered opinion, therefore, as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the quilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed. 9. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.62/2005 is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted. Fine if paid, be refunded to the appellants. Since the appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.