Judgement T. P. SHARMA, J. :- Criminal Appeal No. 1269/2003 filed by Ramkeshra alias Rameshwar, 1333/2003 filed by Devnarayan, 97/2004 filed by Guddu alias Ramsevak and 317/2004 filed by Dunmun alias Shiv Kumar are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 18-11-2003 and order of sentence dated 19-11-2003 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 273/ 2001, therefore, same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18-11-2003 and order of sentence dated 19-11-2003 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 273/2001 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants, namely Ramkeshra alias Rameshwar, Devnarayan, Badna alias Ram Badan. Tula alias Tulwa, Ramdhani alias Ram, Shiv Kumar alias Pukar, Guddu alias Ramsevak and Sunmun alias Shiv Kumar guilty for commission of offence under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"), sentenced each of the accused to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months under Section 147 of the IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellants are residents of village Barbaspur, Police Station-Pratappur. They were having inimical terms with Kannilal Jaiswal on the ground of grazing of the crop of Kannilal Jaiswal (since deceased) who was resident of adjoining village Markadand, Police Station-Rajpur. On the fateful day (9-5-2001) at about 3.30 p.m. deceased Kannilal Jaiswal was going to his village Markanand from Pratappur by motorcycle along with his daughters, namely, Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal and Sunita Jaiswal. When they reached near Kukrahi canal Barbaspur turning they were obstructed by putting the tree on the road. Deceased Kannilal Jaiswal and his daughters got down from motorcycle, the appellants were hidden near the place of incident armed with stick and axe. Appellant Devnarayan came with stick and assaulted the deceased. Rest of the accused persons also came near Kannilal Jaiswal and attacked him. Appellant Guddu alias Ramsevak repeatedly assaulted on the head of the deceased by axe. Rest of the accused persons assaulted by stick. Appellant Devnarayan came with stick and assaulted the deceased. Rest of the accused persons also came near Kannilal Jaiswal and attacked him. Appellant Guddu alias Ramsevak repeatedly assaulted on the head of the deceased by axe. Rest of the accused persons assaulted by stick. Deceased Kannilal Jaiswal fell down and became unconscious; the body was thrown by the appellants in a pit. P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal witnessed the incident. Her sister Ku. Sunita went to village Barbaspur and informed the villagers about the incident. P.W. 3 Jeevdhan and other person immediately reached to the spot. Kannilal Jaiswal was taken in a car, but he died in the course of travelling near Makhanpur. 4. Merg intimation (Ex. P/2) was recorded by S.H.O., P. S. Pratappur, which was lodged by P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, based on that, First Information Report (Ex. P/1) was registered. Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after giving notice (Ex. P/3), prepared inquest (Ex. P/4) on the body of Kannilal Jaiswal. Body of Kannilal Jaiswal was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Pratappur under Ex. P/30. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Narayan Singh Paikra (P.W.8) vide Ex.P/31 "A" and found following injuries :- (a). Incised wound over the left side or middle parietal region having dimension of 8 x 1 x .5 cm. (b). Two incised wounds over right middle parietal region up to frontal region having dimension of 8 x 2 x 05 cm. (c). Multiple fractures of both forearms over lying scene of forearm was reddish to blackish in colour. (d). One stab wound on the parietal aspect of left wrist having dimension of 3 x 1 x 1 cm. (e). One stab wound over back of the left elbow having dimension of 3 x 1 x 1 cm. (f). One stab wound over internal aspect of left leg having dimension of 2 x 2 x 5 cm. (g). Fracture, of lower of femur bone of the both leg multiple redish to blackish spot over both the knee left scapular region and below left inter scapular region. 5. Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to severe injury leading to cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature. (g). Fracture, of lower of femur bone of the both leg multiple redish to blackish spot over both the knee left scapular region and below left inter scapular region. 5. Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to severe injury leading to cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature. Plain soil, blood stained soil, plain leaf and blood stained leaf, optic cover, one piece of shoe of the deceased and damaged watch were seized from the spot vide Ex. P/35. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/36. Blood stained clothes of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal (P.W. 1) were seized vide Ex. P/2-A. Sealed packet of hair of deceased Kannilal Jaiswal and his clothes were seized vide Ex. P/5. 6. The appellants were taken into custody. Disclosures of facts made by the appellants were recorded by the investigating officer. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/6) of appellant Shivkumar, axe was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/7. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/8) of appellant Dunmun alias Shiv Kumar, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/9. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/10) of appellant Guddu alias Ramsevak, lathi was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/11. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/12) of Ram alias Ramdhani, club was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/13. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/14) of Tula alias Tulwa, axe was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/15. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/16) of Badna alias Ram Badan, stick was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/17. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. P/18) of Ramkeshara alias Ramkeshwar, club was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/19. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P/20) of Devnarayan alias Shomasu Yadav, Geda (wooden piece like heavy club) was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P/21. Seized articles were sent for examination to Dr. Narayan Singh Paikra (P.W. 8) vide Ex. P/31. After examination of the said articles it was opened that injury over the body of the deceased may be inflicted by the aforesaid articles. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Motorcycle and papers were seized vide Ex. P/34, Seized clothes, stick/lathi (geda) and axe were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P/37. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Motorcycle and papers were seized vide Ex. P/34, Seized clothes, stick/lathi (geda) and axe were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P/37. Presence of blood on the stick seized from the appellant Ramdhani alias Ram, axe seized from the accused Badna alias Ram Badan, axe seized from the accused Tula alias Tulwa was confirmed vide Ex. P/36. One letter found in the pocket of deceased Kannilal Jaiswal written in the name of Chief Minister was seized vide Ex. P/41. Finally, the appellants were arrested vide arrest memo Exs. P/22 to P/29. 8. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surajpur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambikapur from where Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur received the same on transfer for trial. 9. In order to establish the charge against the accused/appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 14, witnesses. Statement of Court witness namely, Chandradutt Sharma was also recorded. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. in which they denied the material appearing against them. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. In their support, the defence has examined as many as 3 witnesses. 10. Learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforementioned. 11. We have heard Shri A. K. Prasad, Shri G. S. Ahluwalia and Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the appellants and Shri D. K. Gwalre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. 12. Homicidal death of deceased Kannilal Jaiswal is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Moreover, Dr. Narayan Singh Paikra has stated that on 10-5-2001 he had conducted postmortem on the body of Kannilal Jaiswal and found injuries as aforementioned. Cause of death was shock due to severe injury as a result of excessive haemorrhage and cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature. P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad, P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal had also supported the fact that Kannilal Jaiswal was badly injured and he died. By the above ocular and medical evidence, it is established that the cause of death was homicidal in nature. 13. P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad, P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal had also supported the fact that Kannilal Jaiswal was badly injured and he died. By the above ocular and medical evidence, it is established that the cause of death was homicidal in nature. 13. In order to connect the appellants in the crime in question, the prosecution has placed reliance :- • On the evidence of eye-witness P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal • Oral dying declaration of the deceased before P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad • Circumstances of recovery of weapons of offence at the instance of the appellants/ accused persons. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal to whom the prosecution has examined as eye-witness, but on close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence it becomes clear that she is not eye-witness but she is planted as eye-witness by the prosecution with a view to foist a false case against the accused persons. It is evident from the record that at the time of the alleged incident she was not with deceased Kannilal Jaiswal, but her sister Ku. Sunita was with deceased Kannilal Jaiswal. The prosecution has deliberately not examined Ku. Sunita Jaiswal. Evidence of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal is not natural. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. Even she has not stated as to what weapon the appellants were holding at the time of the incident. Her father was badly injured. Even then she did not provide water to her father to save him. Merg intimation (Ex. P/2) was recorded at her instance in which she has specifically mentioned the word (Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.) 9-5-2001" which creates doubt about the time and date of making this report. Although the requisition form for conducting postmortem does not legally required mentioning the names of the assailants, but it is in routine that if the names of assailants are known then it must find place in the requisition of postmortem, but the same does not appear in the requisition. Names of 6 appellants, namely, Devnarayan Yadav, Tula alias Tulwa, Thunmun Yadav, Guddu alias Ramsevak, Badna Yadav and Ramkeshra were mentioned in the FIR and also in merg intimation (Ex. P/2), but along with the above 6 appellants, name of Rama alias Ramdhani and Shiv Kumar Yadav were recorded in inquest (Ex. P/4). Names of 6 appellants, namely, Devnarayan Yadav, Tula alias Tulwa, Thunmun Yadav, Guddu alias Ramsevak, Badna Yadav and Ramkeshra were mentioned in the FIR and also in merg intimation (Ex. P/2), but along with the above 6 appellants, name of Rama alias Ramdhani and Shiv Kumar Yadav were recorded in inquest (Ex. P/4). It shows that even at the time of sending the dead body for post-mortem, assailants were not known, therefore, names of assailants were not recorded in the post-mortem requisition (Ex. P/30) on 10-5-2001. FIR (Ex. P/1), merg intimation (Ex.P/2) and inquest (Ex. P/4) were antedated, wherein the names of the assailants were recorded after thought and for this reasons the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of Section 157 of the Code and has not sent a copy of FIR to the Magistrate. 15. The evidence of P.W. 3 Jeevdhan and P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal, who were alleged to have been present with deceased Kannilal Jaiswal before his death in a car are self contradictory, in relation to the oral dying declaration of Kannilal Jaiswal evidence of the witnesses does not inspire confidence, the same is not trustworthy and sufficient for conviction of the appellants. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that although the prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses but they are required to examine material witnesses. Non-disclosure of the names of the accused at the earliest opportunity is fatal to the prosecution. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the following cases State of Punjab v. Pritam Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 56 : (1977 Cri LJ 1575) and Bir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 4 SCC 420 : (1978 Cri LJ 177), wherein the Apex Court has held that prosecution is not obliged to examine each and every witness but prosecution is not entitled to withhold any witnesses where evidence of witnesses produced by it suffers from infirmities and is not reliable unless properly corroborated and falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is applicable in criminal cases/Statement of interested witnesses must be corroborated by independent witnesses before they can be relied upon. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that if a witness held untruthful with regard to the co-accused he loses his status of an absolutely reliable witness. Testimony of solitary witness requires close scrutiny. 19. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that if a witness held untruthful with regard to the co-accused he loses his status of an absolutely reliable witness. Testimony of solitary witness requires close scrutiny. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the case of Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 1 SCC 434 : (1976 Cri LJ 331), wherein the Apex Court held that if testimony of witness standing discredited by the FIR lodged by him at the earliest opportunity then he is not absolutely reliable witness. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that star witness of the prosecution namely Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal has changed her stand from time to time. She was not in a position to say as to what weapons the appellants were holding at the time of incident and even how many persons were armed with club and how many were armed with axe. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the case of State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 153 : (2003 Cri LJ 1210), wherein the Apex Court has held that change in stand of a witness makes his statement unreliable and suspicion cannot take the place of proof of guilt. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the case of Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 : (1993 Cri LJ 1796), wherein the Apex Court has held that in case of relative witness there may be possibility that they may also implicate some innocent person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out. Para 4 of the said judgment reads as under : "4.........Of course, mere relationship with the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony, if it is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. In the normal course of events, a close relation would be the last person to spare the real assailant of his uncle and implicate a false person. However, the possibility that he may also implicate some innocent person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out and therefore, as a matter of prudence, we shall look for some independent corroboration of his testimony, to decide about the involvement of the appellant is the crime.........." 23. However, the possibility that he may also implicate some innocent person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out and therefore, as a matter of prudence, we shall look for some independent corroboration of his testimony, to decide about the involvement of the appellant is the crime.........." 23. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that testimony of eye-witness is inconsistent with medical evidence and her conduct also found to be unnatural, therefore, evidence of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal (P.W. 1) is not trustworthy and reliable. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Magni Ram (2001) 9 SCC 589 : (2001 Cri LJ 3283), and Raj Pal v. State of Haryana, 2007 Cri LJ 2926, wherein the Apex Court has held that testimony of eyewitnesses inconsistent with medical evidence and their conduct also found to be unnatural throws reasonable doubt on prosecution case. 25. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent placed reliance on the case of Radha Mohan Singh alias Lai Sahbe v. State of U. P. with Kaushal Kishore Singh v. State of U. P., 2006 AIR SCW 421 : (2006 Cri LJ 1121) wherein the Apex Court has held that mentioning the names of the accused or weapons in inquest report is not necessary and statement of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto. 26. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal as eye-witness. She is the daughter of deceased Kannilal Jaiswal i.e. close relative of the deceased. Evidence of close relatives is not discarded only on the ground of their relationship. Law is well settled in this regard that close relatives are the last persons to leave real culprit and to incriminate innocent persons, but they are interested in conviction, therefore, close scrutiny of their evidence is required, particularly when there is no other evidence to support the version of related witness. 27. In Namdeo v. State Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835 : (2007 Cri LJ 1819), the Apex Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Apex Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. The Apex Court also referred to the decisions rendered in the matter of Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074 : (2005 Cri LJ 2199), in which, it was held that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. 28. In this background, we have to scrutinize the evidence of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal with care and circumspection. She has stated that before the incident she along with her elder sister Ku. Sunita was going with her father from Pratappur to her village Markadand by Yamaha motorcycle. When they reached near Kukrahi canal they saw that the road was obstructed. Kannilal Jaiswal stopped the motorcycle, at that time, appellant Devnarayan came with stick and attacked on the head of Kannilal Jaiswal, as a result he fell down. She and her sister requested the appellants not to assault their father, then appellants Devnarayan and Phukar said that they will assault them also, then Sunita ran away towards village to inform the villagers. Sangeeta hid herself behind the shrub. The appellants assaulted her father with club and axe, they dragged her father and threw him in a pit. After sometime, P.W. 3 Jeevdhan and Baba alias Anil, Ajay and Virendra came to the scene of occurrence where she was weeping. Jeevdhan Yadav sent two persons for bringing Maruti car from Markadand. Thereafter Kannilal Jaiswal was taken in a car. The appellants assaulted her father with club and axe, they dragged her father and threw him in a pit. After sometime, P.W. 3 Jeevdhan and Baba alias Anil, Ajay and Virendra came to the scene of occurrence where she was weeping. Jeevdhan Yadav sent two persons for bringing Maruti car from Markadand. Thereafter Kannilal Jaiswal was taken in a car. At that time, Kannilal Jaiswal disclosed that he has been assaulted at the instance of Anandram. On the way to Pratappur her father succumbed to the injuries. She had lodged FIR (Ex. P/1) and merg intimation (Ex. P/2). Her clothes were seized vide Ex. P/2-A. 29. P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad has stated that daughter of the deceased Ku. Sunita came to his house. At that time she was weeping and said that Yadavas are beating her father near Kukrahi canal. Then he along with Anil alias Baba, Ajay and Virendra rushed towards the place of the incident where he saw Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal was weeping. They took out Kannilal Jaiswal from the pit. Ajay and Anil went to village Markadand by motorcycle for bringing Maruti car and Virendra went to canal for fetching water. At that time Sarpanch Chobhnath came to the place of occurrence. Jeevdhan asked Kannilal Jaiswal that who had assaulted him then he told that Devnarayan, Tularam, Ramkeshra, Badna, Guddu, Thunmun, Rama and Pukar assaulted him. At that time Ajay and Anil brought a car and sent him by car and he went to his house. 30. P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal has stated that Ku. Sunita was weeping and shouting before his house that her father had been beaten by Yadavas. At that time some persons were going towards Kukrahi canal where Kannilal Jaiswal was assaulted. He also went towards the place of the incident along with Vijay Chairwa. Ajay was coming from the place of the incident by motorcycle and told him to go with him then he went with Ajay for bringing car for Kannilal Jaiswal. He reached on the spot by car along with daughter and wife of the deceased. He saw Kannilal Jaiswal who was lying in badly injured condition. Kannilal, Jaiswal was taken to hospital for his treatment by car along with his wife Sushila and daughters namely Ku. Sangeeta and Sunita. Kannilal Jaiswal died on the way to Pratappur where they were taking him for treatment. He saw Kannilal Jaiswal who was lying in badly injured condition. Kannilal, Jaiswal was taken to hospital for his treatment by car along with his wife Sushila and daughters namely Ku. Sangeeta and Sunita. Kannilal Jaiswal died on the way to Pratappur where they were taking him for treatment. Kannilal Jaiswal was crying due to pain and he was not in a position to talk. 31. P.W. 13 Anand Ran, Sub Inspector, has stated that he has recorded merg intimation (Ex. P/2) and FIR (Ex.,P/1). He has supported the entire case of the prosecution and supported the documents i.e. Exs. P/1, P/2 and P/37. 32. Name of only 6 assailants excluding the appellants Shivkumar alias Pukar and Ramdhani alias Ram have been mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P/1) and merg intimation (Ex. P/2) but names of Shivkumar and Ramdhani appear in inquest report (Ex. P/ 4), prepared on 10-5-2001. On that day, statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, who alone has been examined as eye-witness, was not recorded. In her previous statement i.e. FIR (Ex. P/1) and merg intimation (Ex. P/2), names of these two appellants do not find place. There is, no other material to show that after recording FIR and merg intimation, how the Investigating Officer came to know regarding involvement of two other accused persons namely, Shiv Kumar and Ramdhani whose names were mentioned in the inquest Ex. P/4 for the first time on 10-5-2001 as assailants. 33. According to FIR deceased Kannilal Jaiswal, his daughters Ku. Sunita and Ku. Sangeeta were going to Markadand from Pratappur but according to merg intimation, Kannilal Jaiswal and Ku. Sangeeta only two persons were going to Markadand leaving Ku. Sunita Jaiswal at Pratappur. Both the documents were recorded at the instance of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal. But in para 8 of her evidence, she has hot supported the version of merg intimation (Ex. P/2). According to para 10 of her evidence, her father was assaulted by appellant Devnarayan with club over his head and as a result of injury, her father fell down. She has also stated in para 12 of her evidence that Sunita ran away towards village but she did not ran away. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Narayan Singh Palkra (P.W. 8) vide Exs. She has also stated in para 12 of her evidence that Sunita ran away towards village but she did not ran away. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Narayan Singh Palkra (P.W. 8) vide Exs. P/30 and P/ 30-A, but no lacerated wound or contusion was noticed over the head of the deceased. On the other hand, two incised wound were found over the Head of the deceased. 34. Injuries narrated by Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal are not supported by medical evidence. She has not stated as to what weapons the appellants were holding at the time of incident. when the appellants attacked her father, her elder sister ran away towards village but despite the fact that she was threatened by the appellants she did not run away and she was present at the scene of occurrence, even then she has not been able to depose specifically about the specific parts played by different appellants. She had lodged the FIR and merg intimation where she has stated the names of 6 appellants, but in her evidence she has stated the names of 8 appellants. Her version is not corroborated by the medical evidence. According to her evidence, his father told her that he was assaulted at the instance of Anandram, but she has not narrated this material fact in FIR and merg intimation. According to para 3 of her evidence, her father told while he was in car he was assaulted at the instance of Anandram, but this fact is not supported by P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad who was present when Kannilal Jaiswal was taken inside the car. He has narrated different story that Kannilal Jaiswal told him that he was assaulted by all 8 appellants. Statement to this effect is not supported by Jeevdhan Prasad (P.W. 3). On the other hand, contradicted by P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal who was driving the car. 35. According to the evidence of P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal, he went to the house of Kannilal Jaiswal at Markadand for bringing a car to lift him from the spot. He came to the spot by car along with wife and one daughter of the deceased. According to para 4 of his evidence, after taking Kannilal Jaiswal inside the car, wife and daughters of Kannilal Jaiswal Ku. Sangeeta and Sunita were also seated in the car. It reveals from the evidence of Ku. He came to the spot by car along with wife and one daughter of the deceased. According to para 4 of his evidence, after taking Kannilal Jaiswal inside the car, wife and daughters of Kannilal Jaiswal Ku. Sangeeta and Sunita were also seated in the car. It reveals from the evidence of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal that when the appellants started assaulting to Kannilal Jaiswal then Sunita ran away towards village for calling the villagers to help and afterwards according to the evidence of P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal she also seated in the car while Kannilal Jaiswal was being taken to Pratappur. But when he brought the car from Markadand, one daughter and wife of Kannilal Jaiswal also came with him. The presence of Ku. Sunita Jaiswal at the time of incident and the fact that she reached the house of Jeevdhan Prasad is not much disputed. 36. In the instant case, the prosecution had examined only one eye-witness who is relative of the deceased i.e. Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal. The prosecution has not examined another alleged eye-witness i.e. Ku. Sunita Jaiswal who was according to the prosecution also present at the scene of occurrence and when appellants started assaulting the deceased then she ran away towards village. Her presence at the first instance is supported by ocular and documentary evidence, but merg intimation (Ex. P/2) lodged by Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal creates doubt relating to her presence at the spot. Evidence of P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal reveals that one daughter of Kannilal Jaiswal came with him from the house of Kannilal after the incident at the place of incident. If Ku. Sunita Jaiswal was present at the spot and ran away towards the house of Jeevdhan then who was the daughter of Kannilal who came along with Bharat Jaiswal from the house of Kannilal Jaiswal. It has not been explained by the prosecution. But it appears from the evidence of Bharat Jaiswal (P.W. 7) that one daughter came from the house of Kannilal Jaiswal and two daughters of Kannilal Jaiswal went to Pratappur along with Kannilal Jaiswal in the car which was driven by Bharat Jaiswal. This evidence also creates doubt relating to the presence of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal at the spot at the time of occurrence. 37. The conduct of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal is very much material to place reliance on her evidence. This evidence also creates doubt relating to the presence of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal at the spot at the time of occurrence. 37. The conduct of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal is very much material to place reliance on her evidence. FIR and merg intimation both were lodged at the instance of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal and signed by her but as regards to her presence at the scene of occurrence both the documents are contradictory. According to her evidence, incident took place at the instance of Anandram, but this serious fact was not informed by her to the police while lodging the FIR and merg intimation. Even no action has been taken against Anandram especially when according to her, Anandram is a mastermind behind the murder of her father. Her evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. She was present at the spot but she has not stated the part played by different appellants and as to what weapons the appellants were holding at the time of incident. She had not run away from the spot when her elder sister ran away from the spot to call the persons for help. She was present at the spot even after threat given by the appellants. Her father was badly injured but she has not tried even to give water especially when the place of incident is near canal having, availability of water. It shows that conduct of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal is not natural. Her presence at the spot is doubtful and it appears from the evidence of P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal that she was not present at the spot and she came after the incident with Bharat Jaiswal from her house by car. The prosecution has not examined Ku. Sunita Jaiswal as eye-witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Her presence at the spot is not disputed. She has immediately run away from the spot towards the village for getting help. She shouted and asked for help to the persons, but she had not named the persons who had assaulted her father. 38. On close scrutiny of the evidence and conduct of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, it is clear that her evidence is not supported by the medical evidence, inter alia, contradicted by the medical evidence. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. 38. On close scrutiny of the evidence and conduct of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, it is clear that her evidence is not supported by the medical evidence, inter alia, contradicted by the medical evidence. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. Her conduct is unnatural, her evidence is not trustworthy and does not inspire confidence. 39. The prosecution has not examined the sister of Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal P.W. 1. In the present case, evidence of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal is not sufficient for drawing inference against the appellants. 40. Apart from the ocular evidence of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, the prosecution has placed reliance upon oral dying declaration of the deceased. P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad has stated that Kannilal Jaiswal told him that he was assaulted by the aforesaid 8 accused persons while he was taking in a car from the place of incident to Pratappur, but it was not supported by P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal, who was driving the car. He has stated that Kannilal Jaiswal was not in a position to talk. P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal has stated that her father Kannilal Jaiswal told her that he was assaulted at the instance of Anand Ram According to statement of P.W. 7 Bharat Jaiswal, deceased Kannilal Jaiswal was not in a position to talk and according to statement of P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, Kannilal Jaiswal told her that he was assaulted at the instance of Anand Ram, but accordingly to statement of P.W. 3 Jeevdhan Prasad. Kannilal Jaiswal told him that he was assaulted by the aforesaid 8 accused/appellants. Statement relating to oral dying declaration is self-contradictory and evidence of witnesses does not inspire confidence, the same is not trustworthy and sufficient for conviction of the appellants. 41. As regard the recovery of weapons at the instance of the appellants, the prosecution has also adduced the evidence relating to the recovery of incriminating articles/ weapons at the instance of the appellants. According to statement of P.W. 6 Devnath and P.W. 13 Anand Ram, axe and club were recovered from the appellants at their instance. Present case is based on the evidence of eye-witness, oral dying declaration and circumstantial evidence. According to statement of P.W. 6 Devnath and P.W. 13 Anand Ram, axe and club were recovered from the appellants at their instance. Present case is based on the evidence of eye-witness, oral dying declaration and circumstantial evidence. In case based on the evidence of eye-witnesses, circumstantial evidence had only corroborative value and if substantive evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and is not worth reliance, then recovery of weapon is of no help to the prosecution to establish charge against the accused persons. 42. On close scrutiny of the ocular statement of the alleged eye-witness P.W. 1 Ku. Sangeeta Jaiswal, evidence relating to dying declaration and circumstantial evidence relating to recovery of weapons at the instance of the appellants/accused persons evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to warrant conviction against the appellants/accused persons. 43. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the trial Court regarding complicity of the accused/appellants in committing the murder of Kannilal Jaiswal cannot be sustained. 44. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1269/2003, 1333/2003, 97/2004, 317/ 2004 succeeds and same are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC upon the appellants, namely, Ramkeshra alias Rameshwar, Devnarayan, Badna alias Ram Badan, Tula alias Tulwa, Shiv Kumar alias Pukar, Ramdhani alias Ram, Guddu alias Ramsevak and Dunmun alias Shiv Kumar are set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges. The appellants are in custody. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases. The fine amount if deposited by the appellants be refunded to them. Appeal allowed.