Judgment ( 1. ) SINCE both the appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the trial Court, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2. ) APPELLANTS have filed these appeals against the judgment dated 19th december, 2000, passed by the Special Judge ( Atrocities), Rewa in Sessions Trial nos. 162/1999 and 181/1999, convicting them under Sections 342/34, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 200/-, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 200/-, with default stipulation on each count respectively. In both the aforesaid Sessions Trial, common evidence was recorded and they were disposed of by the common judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 12. 11. 1998 at about 12. 15 P. M. , Bhaiya Lal (PW7), lodged the report at police station, Gurh District Rewa that at about 9 a. M. when he was at his house, his son Mordhwaj (PW6) and Raj Kumar came and informed him that accused Kamta Prasad, Sujeet Patel, Ramniranjan Patel, kamlesh, Ramanand and others forcibly took away his another son viz, Ashok patel to their house and after assaulting hanged him, the dead body of Ashok was lying hanged in their house and the door was closed. He went at that house and after seeing the body of Ashok Patel through the window came to police station to lodge the report. Accused persons had killed his son because of old enmity. On the aforesaid report, Head Constable Udaynath Pandey (PW8) recorded merg intimation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sub Inspector r. S. Pandey (PW9) went at the spot. He conducted the inquest and sent the dead body of Ashok for the postmortem examination. Dr. M. K. Tiwari (PW4) of G. M. Hospital, Rewa performed the postmortem examination. On 13. 11. 1998, Sub inspector R. S. Pandey (PW9) registered the first information report Ex. P/15 under sections 147, 341, 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4. ) AFTER requisite investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and the case was committed for trial. During trial, all the accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication. 11. 1998, Sub inspector R. S. Pandey (PW9) registered the first information report Ex. P/15 under sections 147, 341, 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4. ) AFTER requisite investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and the case was committed for trial. During trial, all the accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication. According to them, Ashok Patel (deceased) had committed rape on Manwati who belonged to their family and was also the maternal aunt of Ashok. Enraged village people had caught hold of ashok and had confined him. in the room with a view of handing him over to the police, but out of shame, he committed suicide in the room by hanging. The complainant party taking undue benefit of this occurrence, concocted a false case against them. Accused Lal Bahadur, Ramniranjan and Kuntima pleaded that they were not present at the spot and were falsely implicated due to enmity. According to Lai Bahadur, in the past a false report was lodged by Bhaiya Lal against him, but he was acquitted, therefore, Bhaiya Lal roped him again in the present case. ( 5. ) TO substantiate its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. In defence, accused persons also examined four witnesses. Trial Court relying mainly on the evidence of PW4-Dr. M. K. Tiwari, PW5-Mukesh Kumar Patel, PW-6 Mordhwaj patel, PW7- Bhaiyalal and Investigating Officers PW8-Udaynath Pandey, Head constable and PW9-R. S. Pandey, Sub Inspector, held the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned aforesaid. ( 6. ) LEARNED Senior Advocates Shri S. C. Datt and Shri Surendra Singh submitted that the trial Court committed serious error in convicting the accused persons. The evidence of alleged eye-witnesses Mukesh Patel and Mordhwaj was false and unreliable. Their conduct was unnatural. Names of all the accused persons were not mentioned by complainant Bhaiyalal in merg report Ex. P/13, though it had been lodged on the basis of information furnished to him by eye-witnesses mukesh and Mordhwaj. The allegations made in the merg report though clearly indicated the commission of the offence, yet the first information report was not recorded. The first information report was recorded on the next day i. e. 13. 11. 1998, after the investigation. The statements of witnesses allegedly recorded by the police on 12. 11. 1998 were withheld and instead the statements recorded on 14. 11. The first information report was recorded on the next day i. e. 13. 11. 1998, after the investigation. The statements of witnesses allegedly recorded by the police on 12. 11. 1998 were withheld and instead the statements recorded on 14. 11. 1998 were filed along with the charge sheet. Despite the fact that names of all the accused persons were mentioned in the merg report, the Investigating Officer did not make any effort to arrest them. Only relatives and inimical eye-witnesses were produced in the trial to the total exclusion of independent witnesses. The prosecution story was. otherwise improbable and unnatural and was belied by the medical evidence. According to them, the impugned judgment of conviction deserved to be set aside. ( 7. ) ON the other hand, Shri T. K. Modh, Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses was reliable. Their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence and: the merg report lodged by witness bhaiyalal. Though some mistakes were committed by the. Investigating Officers in the investigation, yet in view of the clear and cogent evidence of eye witnesses, the prosecution case could not be discarded. He justified the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court. ( 8. ) WE have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. ( 9. ) ACCORDING to eye-witness Mordhwaj (PW6), in the morning of 12. 11. 1998, his father asked him to bring pipe and rope from the field. He, Ashok and Raj kumar went to the field on two bicycles. When they were returning, the chain of his bicycle went out of free-wheel, due to which, he stopped on the way. After about 10 minutes, when he reached near the khalihan of Ramanand Patel, he saw the bicycle of Ashok lying there. Ashok was not there. He climbed over an embankment and saw accused Kamta, Niranjan, Ramanand, Rajkumar, Lal Bahadur and Sujeet assaulting and dragging Ashok. He went there and saw them confining ashok inside the room. He though tried to rescue him, but Kuntima pushed him and out. When Kuntima intimidated him, he ran away towards his house and met his brother Rajkumar who was carrying a pipe. He narrated the occurrence to rajkumar and with him went again at the place where Ashok was confined. He though tried to rescue him, but Kuntima pushed him and out. When Kuntima intimidated him, he ran away towards his house and met his brother Rajkumar who was carrying a pipe. He narrated the occurrence to rajkumar and with him went again at the place where Ashok was confined. Accused persons had coiled an electric cable around the neck of Ashok and were pulling it. Kuntima uttered that Ashok had died. He stated that when they were peeping through the window, their cousin Mukesh also reached there and saw the incident from the said window. Ashok died. He started weeping. Kuntima opened the door and intimidated them, then they all ran away. He narrated the occurrence to Bhaiyalal and number of other persons. They all reached at the spot. Kuntima again threatened them that they shall also be killed. ( 10. ) OTHER eye-witness Mukesh Patel (PW5) deposed that in the morning when he was going to fetch labourers for working in his field, near the house of Gulab patel, he saw Mordhwaj shouting that his brother was being killed. He reached there with Rajkumar and Mordhwaj and saw through the window in the room of gulab Patel. He saw accused persons pulling rope which was wrapped around the neck of Ashok. At one side of it were Sujeet and Kamta and on another side there were Ramniranjan, Lalbahadur and Rajkumar. Kuntima had pressed his mouth and Ramanand Patel had pressed his chest. After some time, Ashok died. Sujeet told others that they should hang the body of Ashok on a peg. Kuntima when opened the door, she saw them and shouted whereupon all of them ran away and went to their house and informed about the occurrence to Bhaiyalal and other persons. All of them again went at the house of Gulab Patel and enquired from kamta about Ashok who in turn told them that he had been killed. Others accused persons were also present there with lathis. They again entered the room. Bhaiyalal (PW7) deposed that on getting the information from Mordhwaj and Mukesh about the incident, he along with other family members went to the house of Sujeet (S/o gulab Patel) and saw Kamta, Sujeet, Ramniranjan, Ramanand, Rajkumar and lalbahadur standing there. On asking them about Ashok, Kamta abused him and told that he was killed and hanged and also intimidated them. On asking them about Ashok, Kamta abused him and told that he was killed and hanged and also intimidated them. From the window he too saw Ashok hanged in the room and when he got satisfied that Ashok had died, on a motorcycle with Chakradhar went to police and lodged the report Ex. P/13. ( 11. ) ON a close scanning and scrutiny of the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, we find their testimony highly improbable, unnatural and suspicious. Its. quite unnatural that Mukesh (PW6) who happened to be the real brother of deceased, did not raise hue and cry and collected people to save his real brother. Though he saw accused persons assaulting, dragging and confining Ashok in the room, but he ran away towards his house. It is strange that when he met his brother Rajkumar, both of them went at the house of Gulab Patel and kept on silently peeping through the window. In para 10 of his statement, he admitted that his father and the people who assembled at the place of occurrence did not make any effort to take out Ashok, who was confined in the room. Similarly, Mukesh patel, cousin of deceased, reached the house of Gulab Patel hearing hue and cry allegedly made Merdhwaj, but he also went on viewing the incident through the window. Though at the time of occurrence three brothers of deceased were present, yet they remained silent spectators and did not make any endeavour to rescue him. It cannot be assumed of any prudent man to have behaved in that manner when their brother was confined and was being killed. None of the aforesaid witnesses stated that the accused persons were armed with fire arms or other lethal weapons. We are unable to accept that when Mordhwaj, as stated by him, remained shouting while witnessing the occurrence through the window, none of the accused heard his voice or saw him. It is also not acceptable that when Bhaiyalal and number of other persons went at the house of Sujeet, all the accused persons remained present there. ( 12. ) BHAIYALAL (PW7), though informed by Mordhwaj and Mukesh that accused kamta, Sujeet, Ramniranjan, Ramanand and Rajkumar took away Ashok and killed him and though, he himself went at the place of occurrence and found Kamta, sujeet, Rajkumar, Ramniranjan, Lalbahadur, Ramanand present there, yet in the merg report Ex. ( 12. ) BHAIYALAL (PW7), though informed by Mordhwaj and Mukesh that accused kamta, Sujeet, Ramniranjan, Ramanand and Rajkumar took away Ashok and killed him and though, he himself went at the place of occurrence and found Kamta, sujeet, Rajkumar, Ramniranjan, Lalbahadur, Ramanand present there, yet in the merg report Ex. P/13, he named only four accused persons viz. Kamta, Sujeet, rajkumar and Ramanand. It is also strange that he named one Kamlesh Patel also whose presence in the occurrence was not found established by the police itself and he was not named even by Bhaiyalal in the Court. Bhaiyalal though named accused Lalbahadur and Kuntima, before the Court as assailants, but they were not named in Ex. P/13. Mukesh (PW5) stated that he and Bhaiyalal (PW7)were though present at the spot when police came on 12. 11. 1998, but on that day police made no enquiry from him. According to him, Superintendent of Police reached there earlier then Station Officer of Police Station. On 12. 11. 1998, he did not inform the police about the incident as they did not ask anything from him. He further stated that he did not disclose to police anything even on the next day and he gave his statement to police only on the third day when Investigating Officer enquired from him. It is strange that investigating officer R. S. Pandey (PW9) did not join the eye witnesses of the incident in the inquest proceedings, rather he conducted the said proceeding before other witnesses, ignoring Bhaiyalal and mordhwaj who were present at the spot. It is also important to note that in the inquest Ex. P/2 Investigating Officer mentioned that no eye witness of the incident was available and the cause of death of the deceased was also not known, therefore, it was necessary to send the dead body for postmortem examination. On the reverse of the merg report Ex. P/13 also it was mentioned that the cause of death of deceased was not known. It is also suspicious that though police received the information about the commission of the cognizable offence on 12. 11:1998 itself, yet the crime was registered and first information report was recorded on 13. 11. 1998 at 9 P. M. Investigating Officer R. S. Pandey (PW9)admitted that though he had evidence, still he did not register the crime because he wanted to get it further verified. 11:1998 itself, yet the crime was registered and first information report was recorded on 13. 11. 1998 at 9 P. M. Investigating Officer R. S. Pandey (PW9)admitted that though he had evidence, still he did not register the crime because he wanted to get it further verified. According to him, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses on 12. 11. 1998, but those statements were not produced before the Court with the charge sheet. The statements of the eye witnesses which were recorded on 14. 11. 1998 were only filed with the charge sheet. All the above facts cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of the evidence of eye witnesses Mukesh and Mordhwaj Patel. ( 13. ) YET another important aspect of the case is that when police reached at the spot, the room in which the dead body was found, was bolted from inside. The door latch was got opened with the help of a bamboo. It remains unanswered that when Bhaiyalal, Mukesh and Mordhwaj and number of other persons reached the place of occurrence and found the accused persons present out side the room, how the door of the room could be bolted from inside, especially when there is no evidence on record to indicate that there was any other door or outlet in the room. This further creates a serious dent in the prosecution story. ( 14. ) WE also find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that there were serious inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the account of incident given by eye witnesses. It has been stated by the alleged eye witnesses that the accused persons brought Ashok in the room dragging and assaulting and thereafter coiled a cable wire around his neck and pulled it from both the ends in opposite directions. However, Dr. M. K. Tiwari (PW4), who performed the postmortem examination of the dead body found only one ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. He found mark of a knot on the left side of the ligature on the side angle of the mandible. According to him, if a rope was coiled around the neck and was pulled from different sides, there would be two marks of ligature on the neck at one point and at other place the ligature mark would be single. He found mark of a knot on the left side of the ligature on the side angle of the mandible. According to him, if a rope was coiled around the neck and was pulled from different sides, there would be two marks of ligature on the neck at one point and at other place the ligature mark would be single. He did not find double ligature marks at any place on the neck of the deceased. He also did not find any other injury on other parts of his body. The evidence of eye witnesses was thus clearly inconsistent with the medical evidence. It rather indicated that it could have been a case of partial hanging. Presence of a knot mark on the angle of the mandible indicated that there had been a knot in the ligature which did not fit in the version given by the alleged eye witnesses. These significant inconsistencies between the evidence of doctor and the evidence of eye witnesses further created doubt about the truthfulness of the eye witnesses, ( 15. ) THE argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that the merg intimation was recorded on the basis of information furnished by Bhaiyalal, a villager, therefore it cannot be discarded on the ground of minor infirmities, is not acceptable to us. Though, merg report Ex. P/13 was lodged by Bhaiyalal immediately after receiving the information from the alleged eye witnesses Mukesh, mordhwaj and Rajkumar even after visiting the place of occurrence and seeing the accused persons at the place of occurrence, yet it did not contain the names of accused Lalbahadur and Kuntima. ( 16. ) THE defence of the accused persons was that on 10. 11. 1998 deceased had committed rape on Manwati who was his maternal aunt. A report in that regard was lodged with the police which was recorded in Rojnamcha No. 297 Ex. D/5-C. People of village had caught the deceased and confined him in the room with a view to hand him over to police, but he committed suicide by hanging himself with the aid of an electric cable on a peg. A report in that regard was lodged with the police which was recorded in Rojnamcha No. 297 Ex. D/5-C. People of village had caught the deceased and confined him in the room with a view to hand him over to police, but he committed suicide by hanging himself with the aid of an electric cable on a peg. Though there was no clear evidence to establish this defence, yet it appears significant that when Investigating Officer r. S. Pandey (PW9) reached the spot, door of the room was bolted from inside, deceased was found partially hanging in the peg and that an earthen pot was found lying crushed under the body of the deceased. These facts threw thick cloud of suspicion on the veracity of the prosecution story. ( 17. ) ALL the infirmities and flaws pointed out hereinabove assume importance, when considered in the light of probabilities. Circumstances emerging from the evidence on record inevitably led to the conclusion that the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses was not worthy of reliance and the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after due deliberation and delay and was not free from doubt and suspicion. In our opinion, the trial Court committed error in holding the accused persons guilty and convicting them. ( 18. ) FOR all the foregoing reasons we allow these appeals, set aside the conviction of the appellants and acquit them of the charges levelled against them. Appellant no. 3 Ram Niranjan @ Narayan of Criminal Appeal No. 102/2001 is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. ( 19. ) A copy of the judgment be kept in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 102/2001. Appeal allowed.