JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J,) - Heard and gone through the record. 2.State has appealed against the judgment of the trial Court whereby the respondents, numbering 15, who were charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 147 and 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian penal Code, have been acquitted. 3.First, we may sum up the prosecution version. Deceased Rai Singh, it appears, had been booked for an offence of rape, at the instance of one of the respondents, namely Rattani Devi. She claimed to be the victim of the said offence of rape. Two days prior to the occurrence (the occurrence took place on 12th February, 1992), the deceased was granted bail in the aforesaid rape case. On the day of occurrence, he was allegedly overpowered in village Dathi by all the fifteen respondents. His hands and feet were tied with a rope at the shop of respondent Gian Chand alias Johndu Ram son of Sant Ram and then he was given a sound thrashing by all the respondents. A bicycle chain was used as a weapon of offence. Besides that some Lathis were also used to cause the injuries. The lady respondents allegedly gave shoe-beating to the deceased. The beating continued for about 12 hours and ultimately at 9 p.m. deceased Rai Singh breathed his last. Report was lodged with the police by PW-3 Madan Lal, a brother of deceased Rai Singh. Copy of the report is Ex. PC. As per this report, on 12th February, 1992, at 4.30 p.m., when PW-3 Madan Lal, the lodger of the report, was present at a place called Surani, some people told him that his brother Rai Singh was being beaten up by the residents of village Dathi and that when he reached near the shop of respondent Gian Chand in village Dathi, he saw respondents Parshotam Singh, Pradhan of Gram panchayat Dathi, Balwant Singh, Up Pradhan Gian Chand, Pritam Chand, Rasila Ram, Shakuntla, Ram Singh, Puran Chand, Kaur Chand, Man Singh, Babu Ram, sister-in-law (Bhabi) of Jai Chand, wife of Man Chand, Bihari Lal. Raj Kumar son of Ram Dittu, Chowkidar of Baggi, had caught hold of his brother Rai Singh and were giving beatings to him. Man Singh, Amar Singh son of Asha Ram, Amar Singh son of Rattan Chand and Mohinder Singh son of Milkhi were witnessing the occurrence. Raj Kumar son of Ram Dittu, Chowkidar of Baggi, had caught hold of his brother Rai Singh and were giving beatings to him. Man Singh, Amar Singh son of Asha Ram, Amar Singh son of Rattan Chand and Mohinder Singh son of Milkhi were witnessing the occurrence. It was further reported that PW-3 Madan Lal, the lodger of the report, then went to his house to inform his father and when he, accompanied by his father, returned to the place of occurrence, Rai Singh was lying dead in the verandah of the shop of respondent Gian Chand. 4.Police reached the spot. Inquest was conducted. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. PW-1 Dr. Sulakashna Puri conducted the autopsy and noticed the following injuries: 1. Swelling of nose, lacerated wound over bridge of nose. Clotted blood present. On pant blood stains were present. Irregular reddish blue multiple bruises present on back, chest, upper limbs, lower limbs, abdomen. Both hands were swollen. Multiple abrasions on both hands, on dorsum of both hands present. Fracture of right wrist joint and right elbow joint. Bleeding from right ear. 2. Fracture base of skull. Membranes were torn at places. 3. Peritoneum was torn at places and peritoneum cavity was filled with blood. 4. Spleen was ruptured. 5. Left kidney was ruptured. Death was opined to have been caused by the injuries to the vital organs, which led to haemorrhagic shock. Police recorded the statements of a number of persons, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and filed the report, under Section 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against all the fifteen respondents. 5.Trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence. Statements of the witnesses have been held to be self-contradictory and also contradictory to each other. Some other infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution have also been noticed by the trial Court in its judgment. 5.Trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence. Statements of the witnesses have been held to be self-contradictory and also contradictory to each other. Some other infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution have also been noticed by the trial Court in its judgment. 6.Prosecution examined PW-2 Sheela Devi, the sister of the deceased; PW-3 Madan Lal, the brother of the deceased; PW-4 Roda Ram, Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat within the area of which the village of the deceased falls; PW-5 Amar Singh son of Asha Ram; PW-6 Brahmi Devi, the mother of the deceased; PW-7 Amar Singh son of Rattan Chand; and PW-11 Pritam Chand, who all claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. 7.PW-3 Madan Lal, who lodged the FIR, Ex. PC/1, testified that he reached the spot at 7 or 7.30 p.m. and found that his brother deceased Rai Singh was lying in the verandah of the shop of respondent Gian Chand with his hands and feet tied with a rope and that in his presence respondent Parshotam kicked his brother and three ladies, named Bhuli, Sarswati and Urmila Devi gave shoebeating to him. He did not say that any of the persons, named as eye-witnesses in FIR Ex. PC/1, was also present. However, he stated that prior to his visit to the spot, his mother, sister-in-law and a sister had already visited the spot and they saw the occurrence. The witness has not named three persons, who, according to the earliest version Ex. PC, had witnessed the occurrence, which fact shows that he may not have even gone to the spot at 7 or 7.30 p.m., because had he visited the spot, as testified by him, while appearing as PW-3 and also got recorded in FIR Ex. PC/1, he must have made a mention of the persons, who, according to the FIR, were the eye-witnesses. Again, in the FIR he did not attribute any particular act to respondent Parshotam Singh and other male respondents, except that they all were giving beating to the deceased, but while in the witness-box, he stated that it was only respondent Parshotam, out of the male respondents, who gave kick blows to deceased Rai Singh, in his presence and that the three lady respondents gave him shoebeating. In the FIR, there is no mention about the lady respondents giving shoe-beating to the deceased. These contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-3 Madan Lal and the earlier version, which he gave to the police, vide report Ex. PC, create a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of his testimony. 8.PW-4 Roda Ram testified that at 5 p.m., on 12th February, 1992, PW-6 Brahmi Devi, the mother of the deceased, came to him and informed that her son Rai Singh was being beaten up by the respondents in village Dathi and that he asked her to call the Ward Member Prem Singh, whose house is situated at a distance of 1 km from his house, and after she called the said Ward Member, he went to the spot accompanied by said Ward Member and PW-6 Brahmi Devi and on reaching the spot he saw that the deceased was lying unconscious on the ground and blood was oozing from his mouth and nose. He has stated that his (deceased Rai Singh’s) hands and feet were not tied. 9.PW-6 Brahmi Devi stated that her daughter’s son, named Sunil, during school recess, came to her and informed that her son Rai Singh had been tied with a rope and was being beaten up at Rodan-da-Galu by the people and she sent her grandson to call her daughter and daughter-in-law and she herself rushed to the spot and on reaching the spot saw that legs and hands of her son were tied with rope and the respondents, Preeto, Johndu alia Gian Chand, Kaur Chand, Bihari Lal, Rattani Devi, Nirmala and Shakuntla were giving beating to her son with Dandas, bicycle chain, shoes and were also kicking and fisticuffing him. She stated that she returned from the spot and went to Roda Ram and then on his asking went to call Prem Chand, Member Panchayat, and in their company again went to the spot. 10.PW-2 Sheela Devi stated that on the fateful day, during school recess time, Sunil, her sister’s son, came to the pasture and informed her and her sister-in-law that the deceased was being beaten up and that on getting that information she and her sister-in-law went to the spot and reached there at 2.30 p.m. and found that her mother was already there. She stated that respondents Balwant Chand and Parshotam were not there at 2.30 p.m., but they reached there at about 6 or 6.30 p.m. At the same time, she stated that she returned home alongwith her mother and sister-in-law at about 3 or 4 p.m. and thereafter her mother went to call the Pradhan and the Member of the Panchayat. She stated that she again, accompanied by her sister, went to the spot at 6 or 6.30 p.m. 11.None of the aforesaid three witnesses, namely PW-4 Roda Ram, PW-6 Brahmi Devi and PW-2 Sheela Devi, is named as an eye-witness in the earliest version Ex. PC, which was given to the police by PW-3 Madan Lal, the brother of PW-4 Sheela Devi and son of PW-6 Brahmi Devi. It has been stated by PW-3 Madan Lal that before lodging the report, he went to his house to inform his father about the incident and that after informing his father he went back to the spot in the company of his father, but by that time his brother was dead. He stated that when he went to his house to inform his father, his mother PW-6 Brahmi Devi, sister PW-2 Sheela Devi and a Bhabi (brother’s wife) met him and told him that earlier they had gone to the spot and witnessed the respondents giving beatings to deceased Rai Singh. That means PW-3 Madan Lal came to know about the visit of PW-2 Sheela Devi, PW-6 Brahmi Devi and PW-4 Roda Ram to the spot prior to his own visit and despite that he did not name them in the earliest version Ex. PC, which he lodged with the police on the next following day at 5 a.m. No explanation has been put forth by the prosecution for the omission of the names of these persons in Ex. PC. It may be stated that while PW-2 Sheela Devi and PW-6 Brahmi Devi are the sister and the mother, respectively, of the deceased, PW-4 Roda Ram is the Up Pradhan of their Panchayat. In view of the fact that their names do not appear in the earliest version Ex. PC. It may be stated that while PW-2 Sheela Devi and PW-6 Brahmi Devi are the sister and the mother, respectively, of the deceased, PW-4 Roda Ram is the Up Pradhan of their Panchayat. In view of the fact that their names do not appear in the earliest version Ex. PC, even though the witness, who gave the earliest verons, namely PW-3 Madan Lal had been informed that they had been to the place of occurrence, when the incident was taking place as also the fact that two of them are close relatives of the deceased and the third one was the Up Pradhan of their Panchayat and also belongs to his community, there cannot be an escape from the observation that the story of these witnesses having seen the occurrence is nothing but an afterthought. So, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-2 Sheela Devi, PW-4 Roda Ram and PW-6 Brahmi Devi. 12.It is also doubtful if PW-3 Madan Lal, the brother of the deceased, went to the spot around 7 or 7.30 p.m., and witnessed the occurrence, as testified by him. In the earliest version Ex. PC, the witness got recorded that he reached a place called Surani at 4.30 p.m. by a bus where some people informed him that his brother Rai Singh was being beaten up by the residents of village Dathi. He has testified that the distance between the said village Surani and the place of occurrence is 7 kms. He claims to have reached the place of occurrence at 7 or 7.30 p.m. Distance of 7 kms does not take more that 1-1/2 hour to be covered on foot. Now, if PW-3 Madan Lal had been informed at 4.30 p.m that his brother was being beaten up at a place about 7 kms away, he was supposed to have reached there by 6 p.m., in any case. 13.Moreover, none of the other witnesses, who claim to have witnessed the occurrence, including PW-5 Amar Singh son of Asha Ram and PW-7 Amar Singh son of Rattan Singh, who are named in the earliest version Ex. PC, do not say that they had spotted PW-3 Madan Lal on the spot. 13.Moreover, none of the other witnesses, who claim to have witnessed the occurrence, including PW-5 Amar Singh son of Asha Ram and PW-7 Amar Singh son of Rattan Singh, who are named in the earliest version Ex. PC, do not say that they had spotted PW-3 Madan Lal on the spot. PW-5 Amar Singh stated that when he reached the spot at 5 p.m., PW-4 Roda Ram was already there and besides him mother of the deceased, one Mohinder Singh and certain other persons were present. 14.PW-4 Roda Ram himself says that at 5 p.m., PW-6 Brahmi Devi, the mother of the deceased, came to his house and that he asked her (Brahmi Devi) to call the Member Panchayat Prem Singh whose house is at a distance of 1 km from his house and after Prem Singh came he accompanied by said Prem Singh and Brahmi Devi went to the spot. If it is so, he could not have been present on the spot at 5 p.m. when PW-5 Amar Singh says that he reached the spot and Roda Ram, Brahmi Devi and some other persons were already there. The contradiction renders not only the testimony of PW-4 Roda Ram doubtful but also that of PW-5 Amar Singh. 15.Again, while according to PW-5 Amar Singh, Rattni Devi had given Danda blows to the deceased, the other witnesses say that she and the other two lady respondents gave shoe-beating to the deceased. Story of PW- Amar Singh that PW-4 Roda Ram was present on the spot is also belied by another portion of his testimony wherein he stated that he remained on the spot for 30 to 45 minute. He says that he reached the spot at 5 p.m. That means he left the spot at 5.30 or 5.45. p.m. PW-4 Roda Ram could not have been at the spot by the time he left because, as already noticed, he was apprised of the indent at his place at 5. p.m. by Brahmi Devi. Thereafter he sent PW-6 Brahmi Devi to call the Member panchayat, who lived at a distance of 1 km. That means PW-6 Brahmi Devi covered a distance of 2 kms, 1 km going to the house of Member Panchayat and 1 km returning therefrom, before she reached the house of PW-4 Roda Ram again, from where the three went to the spot. That means PW-6 Brahmi Devi covered a distance of 2 kms, 1 km going to the house of Member Panchayat and 1 km returning therefrom, before she reached the house of PW-4 Roda Ram again, from where the three went to the spot. Thus, it was not possible for them to be there by 5.30 or 5.45 p.m. 16.No doubt, PW-5 Amar Singh is named in the earliest version Ex. PC, which was given to the police by PW-3 Madan Lal, but it appears from a comparative reading of the testimony of this witness and that of PW-3 Madan Lal that in fact he was not present on the spot. As already noticed, according to PW-5 Amar Singh, he reached the spot at 5 p.m. and remained there for 30 to 45 minutes. PW-3 Madan Lal says that he reached the spot at 7 or 7.30 p.m. and in his presence deceased was given shoe-beating by the lady respondents and this fact was witnessed, amount others, by PW-5 Amar Singh. This is not correct, because PW-5 Amar Singh himself says that he remained on the spot for only 30 to 45 minutes after reaching there at 5 p.m. 17.PW-7 Amar Singh stated that he went to the spot at 4.30 p.m and saw that deceased Rai Singh had been tied up by his hands and feet with a rope and was being given beatings at the shop of respondent Gian Chand. In the cross-examination he, however, stated that nobody gave any beatings to the deceased in his presence nor did he saw any of the male respondents armed with any weapon or other object which could be used as a weapon. This witness stated that he remained on the spot for 15 to 20 minutes, meaning thereby that he was not supposed to be on the spot when PW-3 Madan Lal, a brother of deceased Rai Singh, reached the spot. But, in the earliest version Ex. PC. this witness (PW-7 Amar Singh son of Rattan Chand) is also named as the person who witnessed the shoe-beating of the deceased at the hands of lady respondents, in the presence of PW-3 Madan Lal, who reached the spot at 7 to 7.30 p.m, per his own testimony. But, in the earliest version Ex. PC. this witness (PW-7 Amar Singh son of Rattan Chand) is also named as the person who witnessed the shoe-beating of the deceased at the hands of lady respondents, in the presence of PW-3 Madan Lal, who reached the spot at 7 to 7.30 p.m, per his own testimony. 18.Thus, it stands demonstrated that PW-5 Amar Singh son of Asha Ram and PW-7 Amar Singh son of Rattan Chand, even though named to be the witnesses of the acts committed by the respondents in the presence of PW-3 Madan Lal, were in fact not present when PW-3 Madan Lal claims to have reached the spot. 19.Besides the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the abovenamed witnesses of the prosecution, their conduct also does not seem to be natural. According to these witnesses, the deceased had been tied with a rope by his hands and legs and was being beaten up by a large number of persons. If these witnesses were present on the spot and saw the occurrence, they were supposed to have intervened or, in any case, if they felt that they being lesser in number, compared to the number of the respondents, were not in a position to rescue the deceased, they could have rushed to the Police Station or the nearby Police Post to seek police help. It may be noted that the deceased, according to the prosecution story, was kept tied up and subjected to beatings for about twelve hours. This was more then enough time for the witnesses, some of whom are the close relatives of the deceased to seek police help. PW-11 Pritam Chand testified that the deceased had been overpowered by two Army personnel, one of whom was the would be son-in-law of respondent Gian Chand and after tying his hands and feet, the said Army personnel gave severe beating to the deceased, while proclaiming that he was a gunda. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that one of the two Army men was Raj Kumar and that he did not know the other Army man. Now, there is one respondent by the name of Raj Kumar but he is not an Army man. Instead he is a Chowkidar. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that one of the two Army men was Raj Kumar and that he did not know the other Army man. Now, there is one respondent by the name of Raj Kumar but he is not an Army man. Instead he is a Chowkidar. The witness did not say that respondent Raj Kumar is the same man, whom he named as one of the two Army men and who overpowered the deceased and gave him beatings after tying his hands and feet with a rope. Therefore, the testimony of PW-11 Pritam Chand is also of no help to the prosecution. 20.In view of the abovestated position, we do not find this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. M.R.B. ———————