JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 13.06.2003 passed by 'he learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 324 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story is that on 12.03.1998, a written report was submitted by Ganeshram at Primary Heath Centre, Govindgarh to the Head Constable Om Prakash, stating therein that at about 9.00 p.m., his father Narayanlal, uncle Ghasiram, brother Jagdish Prasad and Achuki were suddenly attacked in their house by Mohanlal, Babulal, Hari Singh, Ramdev Singh, Baldev, Ramchandra, Birdhichand and Gopal who came in a jeep and on arriving started beating and set the Shed (Chhapra) of the house of Narayanlal on fire. They threatened to kill the entire family and also said that nothing has happened till now, if anything happens to their life and property, his family will be destroyed. 3. On the basis of this written report, F.I.R. No. 42/1998 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341 and 435 I.P.C. was registered and investigation started. During investigation Site Plan, Exhibit P-3, was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused except Baldev and Gopal were arrested. On their disclosure statements, recoveries were made. The injured Narayan, Jagdish, Aachuki and Ghasiram were got examined by the Doctor Azizuddin. The opinion of the Doctor was collected. The prosecution, also arrested Mohanlal and Birdhichand and made recoveries of the weapons of offence as per their disclosure statements, but challan was not presented against them and also against Baldev and Gopal who remained absconding and investigation against these four accused have been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 4. In the Challan, 42 witnesses were cited to prove the guilt against the accused. The charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and were put to the trial. The prosecution examined 30 witnesses out of 42 witnesses cited in the Challan before the Trial Court and the defence also examined five witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused and recorded findings of conviction and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment including the sentence against other minor offences and imposed fine also. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused and recorded findings of conviction and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment including the sentence against other minor offences and imposed fine also. 5. The appeals have been preferred by the appellants on the ground that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. The weapons of offence though recovered by the prosecution, being not blood stained, have been wrongly appreciated for connecting the accused with the commission of offences. No F.S.L. report has been received to find as to whether blood is found on the weapons of offence and whether it is human blood and that despite having found contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses, the Trial Court has erroneously relied upon them for convicting the accused. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the 1 record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions as set out in the memo of the appeals challenging the impugned judgment. On appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that P.W. 1 Bhagwan Sahai, P.W. 2 Laxman Singh, P.W. 3 Ganeshram, P.W. 4 Ghisiram, 1 P.W. 5 Jagdish and P.W. 30 Aachuki have been cited as eye-witnesses to prove the occurrence. P.W. 18 Mohanlal and P.W. 14 Birbal have been cited in the Challan to prove the recovery memos. Written report furnished by Ganeshram has been exhibited as Ex.P. 2. 8. P.W. 3 complainant Ganeshram in his statement before the Trial Court has stated that he received three injuries. He has further stated that Ramdev has inflicted axe blow on the head of Narayan, father of the complainant and that accused Babulal and Gopal and Ramchand inflicted Lathi blows on the chest of the deceased. Ramdev and Baldev have inflicted axe injuries on the head of the deceased. Baldev also inflicted injury with axe to Ganesh, P.W. 3, and Ramdev also inflicted injury with axe to Ghasi, P.W. 4. 9. We have examined Exhibit No. P-23, Certificate issued by Doctor which contains injuries, and find that there is only one injury at serial No. 1 which caused by sharp edged weapon. Baldev also inflicted injury with axe to Ganesh, P.W. 3, and Ramdev also inflicted injury with axe to Ghasi, P.W. 4. 9. We have examined Exhibit No. P-23, Certificate issued by Doctor which contains injuries, and find that there is only one injury at serial No. 1 which caused by sharp edged weapon. P.W. 3 Ganeshram has stated that accused Ramdev and Baldev caused the injuries on the head of Narain with axe which is contradictory and unreliable as having only one sharp edged injury caused by sharp edged weapon. P.W. 30 Aachuki injured has stated that Mohanlal accused has inficited injury with axe on Narain deceased whereas P.W. 2 Laxman Singh has also stated that Mohanlal has inflicted injury on the head of Narain. There is contradiction in the statements with regard to inflicting of the injury on the head of the deceased as all the three witnesses have given quite different and contradictory versions. P.W. 2 Laxman Singh has also stated that Hari Singh inflicted injury with Saria (lethal weapon) whereas Lathi has been recovered from him and it is not the case of the prosecution that Hari Singh inflicted any injury with Lathi. Similar are the statements of other witnesses having major contradictions. 10. Post Mortem Report EX.F 1'6 indicates that incised wound of 1.75 cm x 1/4 cm in width has been caused by sharp edged weapon on the chest and a lacerated wound deep 1.5 cm x 1 cm caused in between 7th and 8th rib. Another injury is caused in the same way of the size of 2 cm x 1 cm. The prosecution has recovered only one axe and three lathies and no such type of weapon has been recovered from the accused which could cause such injuries on the body of the deceased. 11. The recovery of axe and three lathies has been proved by the prosecution. Axe has been recovered from Ramdev Singh and Lathies from other three accused. On reading the recovery memo, we find that the axe and the Iathies have been shown as blood stained. The clothes of the deceased such as Shirt, Dhoti, Sweator were also seized and found blood stained. Axe has been recovered from Ramdev Singh and Lathies from other three accused. On reading the recovery memo, we find that the axe and the Iathies have been shown as blood stained. The clothes of the deceased such as Shirt, Dhoti, Sweator were also seized and found blood stained. All these packets were sent by the prosecution to the F.S.L. through Ex.P-21 which is a receipt obtained by Harphool Singh constable from the F.S.L. The Investigating Officer has not taken trouble to get the opinion of the F.S.L. as to whether the weapons have been found blood stained and whether the blood, if found on the weapons, is human blood. This was necessary for the prosecution to connect the accused with the commission of the offences committed using three weapons. The prosecution has failed to make out this. The accused could not be connected by the prosecution with the weapons used for commission of the offence. 12. The prosecution has not explained the reasons as to why Mohanlal and Birdhichand have not been challenged whereas investigation against them was complete. Accused Baldev and Gopal were absconding and could not be arrested by the police for making recovery for them. The investigation against them was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. It appears that Mohanlal is a Sarpanch of the village and the prosecution has shielded him by not filing challan against him and accused Birdhichand against whom the investigation is complete. 13. Another aspect of the occurrence is that Hari Singh, accused, has also filed a complaint with regard to the same occurrence in the same Police Station which has been registered as F.I.R. No. 41/1998. He has stated therein that he is a taxi driver and one Rajendra hired his taxi and a dispute arose with regard to the fare to be charged. While fare was being settled, Ramchand, Babulal, Ramdev, Bhagwan Sahai, Moolchand, Surjaram, Arjunlal, Jagdish, Gishiram, Ganeshram, Narayan Lal, Aachuki Devi, Sua Devi and Dhapli Devi came on spot and some of them were armed with axes (Kulharis) and sticks and started beating him and burnt his taxi also. The prosecution has separately filed a Challan against the complainant party which is pending trial before the Magistrate for commission of offence under Sections 147, 324 and 435 IPC. 14. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. of the accused, they have denied the occurrence and pleaded innocence. The prosecution has separately filed a Challan against the complainant party which is pending trial before the Magistrate for commission of offence under Sections 147, 324 and 435 IPC. 14. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. of the accused, they have denied the occurrence and pleaded innocence. Copy of the challan presented by the police in F.I.R. 41/1998 has been placed on record and exhibited as Ex.D-12. On perusal of the Challan, it appears that in the same occurrence both the parties had free fight. Both the parties received lacerated wound injuries and sharp edged weapon injuries. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to explain during investigation as to how these injuries came to be inflicted on the accused. The accused have also been examined i on the same day i.e. 12.03.1998 by the same doctor who has examined the injured Jagdish, Ghisiram and Aachuki of the complainant party. The Trial Court has discussed this evidence in the course of the judgment which is extracted and reads as under : "His version is that an injury was found on the person of Aachuki on complaint of pain on the outer side of calf, on the left calf black haematoma and tenderness was existing. Injury No. 2 bluish injury was available on right shoulder. The said injury was found to be caused with blunt object. Injury report is Ex.P/18. It is not possible to sustain from a fall. It may be possible through push. Similarly P.W. 24 Dr. Azizuddin has medically examined Jagdish Narayan and Ghasi. On the head of Jagdish a cut wound existing backward caused by some sharp edged weapons and a lacerated wound on the right hip caused by some sharp edged weapon were found. The injury report of it is Ex.P 22. Narayan is also said to be medically examined. On his head a cut wound fore-ward is stated to be caused by some sharp edged weapon. His opinion was kept reserved and was referred to S.M.S. Jaipur. Injury No. 2 bluish spot near pupil of left eye simple by blunt object blood was oozing from the nose. Its nature was also kept reserved. Blood was oozing from the head injury. The patient had vomited three four times and was under semi-conscious state. The duration of injures was from 6 to 12 hours. Its injury report is Ex.P/23. Injury No. 2 bluish spot near pupil of left eye simple by blunt object blood was oozing from the nose. Its nature was also kept reserved. Blood was oozing from the head injury. The patient had vomited three four times and was under semi-conscious state. The duration of injures was from 6 to 12 hours. Its injury report is Ex.P/23. In the same night at 11 O'clock medical examination of four injuries of Ghasiram was also conducted. Cut wound on the head back-ward simple caused by sharp edged weapon, on should lacerated wound caused by blunt weapon, lacerated wound on the leg on frontal side caused by blunt weapon, and lacerated wound on left hand simple caused by blunt weapon was found. In this way injury report Ex.P/24 is said to be prepared and duration of injuries is said to be from 6 to 12 hours said to be caused by sharp edged and blunt weapons. In this way injuries caused on the persons of all the four injured is stated by the medical officer in his statement on oath. By way of defence witness also P.W. 24 Dr. Azizuddin was got examined according to which on 12.03.1998 two injuries of Ramchandra, cut wound on the head and on the lid of right eye swelling was existing vide Ex.D/16 and as per injury report Ex.D/17 of Ramdev Singh three injuries on the head by sharp edged weapon, complaint of pain in the shoulder and in hand and six injuries on the person of Hari Singh on head towards back wound by sharp edged weapon, lacerated on hand by blunt weapon, bluish spot on shoulder and swelling on wrist. His injury report is Ex.D/18. Four injuries are said to be sustained on the person of Babulal including one on head with sharp edged weapon, on right thigh bluish spot, complaint of pain in the hand were found." 15. The Investigating Officer has not tried to find out during investigation as to whether which of the party was aggressor in the free fight as it has to be found out during investigation that if the injuries are caused to both the parties, under what circumstances injuries came to be inflicted in same occurrence. The prosecution has filed two separate challans at different intervals. Had the challans presented simultaneously, these could have been tried together. The prosecution has filed two separate challans at different intervals. Had the challans presented simultaneously, these could have been tried together. In the Challan presented against F.I.R. 41/1998, no recovery has been made. This also shows the negligence on the part of the prosecution to truthfully project the occurrence. If the occurrence is not presented in the manner and the way it has occurred, it causes a serious damage to the prosecution case. It appeals that the prosecution has suppressed the manner and the way in which the occurrence has taken place, therefore, the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and is doubtful. 16. On totality of the circumstances, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the weapons used in the commission of the offence and the genesis of the occurrence, besides no explanation has been tendered as to how the accused suffered injuries. The eye witnesses have attributed sharp edge weapon injury on the deceased, by each of the accused whereas there is only one sharp injury on the head of the deceased. These are vital discrepancies in the statements of the eye witnesses, therefore, it is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. 17. For the aforesaid reasons we extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The accused are acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt. The accused Hari Singh @ Harlal, serving sentence in jail, shall be released forthwith. Bail bonds of other accused stand discharged. 18. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 0685 and 0716 of 2003 have been presented by the same accused who are appellants in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 923/2003. Former two appeals have been placed by Registry on defect stage. Since Appeal No. 923/2003 has been allowed, other appeals are bound to be allowed being filed by the same accused. 19. Appeals are accordingly allowed.Appeals Allowed. *******