JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals, Appeal No. 1586/2007 by Hubbi, Kunwar Pal @ Omveer, Kare @ Jagdish and Gambhir and Appeal No. 1589/2007 by Mohkam Singh, Neman and Pappu, have been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur camp Deeg in Sessions Case No. 31/2004, convicting the accused appellants Hubbi son of Tej Singh, Kunwar Pal @ Omveer son of Mohan Singh for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo Section 148 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Accused appellants Kare @ Jagdish son of Hubbi, Gambhir son of Hubbi, Mohkam Singh son of Surajmal, Neman son of Mohkam Singh, Pappu son of Mohkam Singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. Accused appellants Hubbi son of Tej Singh, Kunwar Pal @ Omveer son of Mohan Singh, Kare @ Jagdish son of Hubbi, Gambhir son of Hubbi, Mohkam Singh son of Surajmal, Neman son of Mohkam Singh, Pappu son of Mohkam Singh were also convicted for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Since both the above appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 3. Briefly stated the facts for disposal of the present appeals are that a written report (Ex.P-1) was filed by Veerpal Singh (PW-1) on the basis of which, the S.H.O., Police Station Deeg District Bharatpur registered F.I.R. No. 546/2001 (Ex.P-2) on 1.11.2001 at 9.15 a.m. under Sections 147, 148, 302 react with 149 I.P.C. In the written report (Ex.P-1), it has been alleged by PW-1 Veerpal Singh that on 1.11.2001 at about 7.00 a.m. his elder brother Balloram went to see his field. On reaching the field, it was found that Hubbi son of Tej Singh, Mohan Singh son of Tej Singh, Vijendra son of Hubbi, Gambhir son of Hubbi, Kare son of Hubbi, Kunwar Pal son of Mohan Singh, Mohkam son of Surajmal, Pappu son of Mohkam, Neman son of Mohkam, Niranjan son of Mohan Singh were there. All of them were having weapons like Pharsa, Axe, lathi and stone in their hands. Hubbi was armed with pharsa, Vijendra was armed with knife, Mohan Singh was armed with Pharsa, Kunwarpal Singh was armed with an axe, Kare was armed with knife, Gambhir was armed with pharsa, Niranjan was armed with stones, Mohkam was armed with lathi, Pappu, was armed with Ballarn and Neman was armed with lathi. They all attacked on Balloram with the common object to kill him on different parts of his body. It is also stated that on account of land dispute between the accused and complainant party, they have killed his brother. The police after usual investigation filed charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against Hubbi, Kunwar Pal @ Omveer and absconding accused Brijendra Thereafter, the case was committed for trial and ultimately it came before the trial Court for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants Hubbi, Kunwarpal @ Omveer for the offence under Sections 302 and 148 I.P.C. Accused-appellants Hubbi and Kunwarpal @ Omveer denied the charges. During the course of trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution on the basis of which process was issued against other seven accused persons and the "trial Court framed charges under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. against all accused-appellants. Accused Mohan Singh son of Tej Singh died during the course of trial and the accused Niranjan was juvenile, therefore, his case was transferred to juvenile Court for trial. Thus, the trial proceeded against seven accused appellants. 4. The prosecution in order to support its case examined as many as 24 witnesses and got exhibited documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29 and C-1. 5. The explanation of the accused appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution story. In defence, the accused appellant Hubbi produced himself as DW-1. In all 8 documents (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8) were produced. 6. 5. The explanation of the accused appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution story. In defence, the accused appellant Hubbi produced himself as DW-1. In all 8 documents (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8) were produced. 6. The trial Court after hearing final submissions in the matter found the accused appellants guilty and sentenced them as indicated here-in-above. Hence, the present two have been filed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. It has been the contention of the learned counsel that in the instant case as a matter of fact there is no eye witness and the two eye-witnesses which have been relied upon by the prosecution are planted witnesses and on account of enmity they have involved the accused appellants. It is also contended that in the beginning the police after investigation found that only three persons were involved in the case and ultimately after recording statements of two witnesses in the case, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the Court took cognizance against other accused appellants; one of them has died and another is facing trial in the Juvenile Court. According to the learned counsel, this shows that the story as put forward by the prosecution is not true and correct version of the case. It is also contended that as per the statement of PW-1, F.I.R. was lodged through the SHO and was duly signed by him and PW-2 whereas Ex.P-1 does not bear the signature of PW-2 and the SHO. It is further contended that when the statement of alleged two eye witnesses Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) are seen together it would appear that there are material omissions and improvements which completely takes away the case of the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, on the basis of the statement of alleged above two eye-witnesses, namely; Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2), it would appear that they were not present at the place of incident and they have not witnessed the incident. According to the learned counsel, on the basis of the statement of alleged above two eye-witnesses, namely; Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2), it would appear that they were not present at the place of incident and they have not witnessed the incident. It is also contended that the blood stained pharsa recovered vide Ex.P-11 from the accused Kunwarpal @ Omveer and the blood stained pent recovered vide Ex.P- 13 on 21.12.2001 on the basis of the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be considered to be a reliable recovery because the accused may not preserve incriminatory articles for long time as the incident took place on 1.11.2001 whereas the alleged recovery was made on 21.12.2001. It is also contended that the above recovery of pharsa and pent would go to show that the witness of recovery, namely Udal PW-19 has admitted in the cross-examination that the memos of recovery were not read over to him and police called him and his signature was obtained. It is also contended that on the one hand the prosecution case is that on the field the accused-appellants reached and committed murder by deadly weapons which they were having in their hands whereas Shrichand PW-7 has come out with an absolutely new case and has stated that he only saw accused Kunwarpal and Brijendra fleeing from the place of occurrence and their clothes were stained with blood. It is also contended that as regard investigation of the case is concerned, Bhal Singh PW-22 has stated in his cross-examination that the relatives of deceased Ballo, namely; Ramesh, Veerpal and other persons, reached at the place of occurrence only after the information furnished by one Kallu to them. According to the learned counsel, if that be so, then how could Veerpal and Ramesh can be considered as eye- witnesses of the incident. It is contended that as per post-mortem report, the death was caused because of excessive bleeding. It is submitted that in order to attract clause third of Section 300 I.P.C., it has not come either in the oral evidence or in the post-mortem report (Ex.P-22) that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is submitted that in order to attract clause third of Section 300 I.P.C., it has not come either in the oral evidence or in the post-mortem report (Ex.P-22) that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is contended that the FSL report (Ex.C-1) was never tendered in evidence which is in contravention of Rule 31 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1980. It is also contended that Kailash Meena (PW-23), the third Investigating Officer, has stated that investigation of the, case was handed over to another Investigating Officer. There does not appear that investigation was conducted after it was taken from him. 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against all the accused persons. It is also contended that against three persons initially charge-sheet was filed and against other accused appellants process was issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court finding the accused guilty on the basis of evidence adduced in the case has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants. It is also contended that without any manner of doubt it is established that Ballo was murdered by the accused- appellants as the death was not a natural one. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. 11. In the present case, following points require consideration: (I) Whether the death of the deceased was natural or homicidal? (II) Whether Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) are reliable, witnesses and they have seen the incident or they were planted? (III) Whether the prosecution has with-held/suppressed the material facts of the prosecution story which has caused prejudiced to the appellants? (IV) Whether the recoveries made are reliable? (V) Whether the conviction of the accused appellants recorded on the basis of statements of Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) is liable to be maintained or the accused are liable to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt? Point No. (I): 12. Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-18) has stated that on 1.11.2031 while he was posted as Junior Specialist (Surgery) in PHC, Deeg, the dead-body of Ballo Singh son of Kishan Singh was brought. A Medical Board was constituted and he was one of the members of the Medical Board. The autopsy on the dead-body was conducted on police requisition. Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-18) has stated that on 1.11.2031 while he was posted as Junior Specialist (Surgery) in PHC, Deeg, the dead-body of Ballo Singh son of Kishan Singh was brought. A Medical Board was constituted and he was one of the members of the Medical Board. The autopsy on the dead-body was conducted on police requisition. He has further stated that the deceased died before 4-6 hours of conduct of post-mortem. He has further stated that following injuries were found on his person: "Head injury: (1) incised wound 3'xlh'x bone deep on left parital region. (2) incised wound 2½'x V 2'x bone deep on left frontal region. (3) lacerated wound 21h'x'/z'x bone deep on right parito-temporal region. (4) incised wound 2'xl/s'x bone deep on right parital region. (5) lacerated wound 11h'x ½x bone deep on left occipital region. (6) incised wound 1-¾'xl/z'x bone deep on right occipital temporal region. (7) lacerated wound l'xlh'x bone deep in front of left ear on the face. (8) incised wound l'xlh'x bone deep behind right ear. Face injury: (1) incised wound 2'x¼'x bone deep on forehead. (2) incised wound 2'x''x bone deep on upper lip. (3) lacerated wound 3'xl'x bone deep on upper left supra on occipital region. (4) lacerated wound 1'x16z'x bone deep over chin. (5) lacerated wound 3'xlh'x bone deep on I fore-head near hairs. Chest injury: (1) multiple bruises in the area of 12'x14'. (2) bruise 5'xih' on the left shoulder. (3) bruise 6'x4' at right eye ilastres. (4) fracture of 3rd, 4th and rib on left side. Hand injury: (1) lacerated wound 5'x4'x bone deep on lower ⅓ of right fore-arm. Muscles and bones were exposed at the interio-lateral aspect. (2) lacerated wound 6'x4'x bone deep on right wrist joint to palm of hand. Muscles and bones were, exposed. One fracture was also there. Leg injury: (1) lacerated wound 3'x2'x bone deep inside left ankle joint. Muscles and bones were exposed. One fracture was also there. (2) lacerated wound 6x5'x bone deep with fracture. Bones and muscles were exposed and crushed and were coming out. 13. He has also stated that in the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was coma because of head injuries and excessive bleeding. He has proved post- mortem report Ex.P-22 which bears his signature from 'A' to 'B' and signatures of other members of the board from 'C' to 'D'. 14. 13. He has also stated that in the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was coma because of head injuries and excessive bleeding. He has proved post- mortem report Ex.P-22 which bears his signature from 'A' to 'B' and signatures of other members of the board from 'C' to 'D'. 14. After carefully examining the statement of Dr. Sushil Sharma PW-18 and the post-mortem report, it appears that several injuries were found on the person of the deceased and in the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was head injuries and excessive bleeding, therefore, there is no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the death was not a natural death and it was homicidal. Point No. (I) is answered accordingly.Point Nos. (II) to (IV): 15. Since point Nos. (II) to (IV) are inter-related, therefore, they are being answered together. 16. It is to be seen that the trial Court while relying upon the testimony of Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) coupled with some recoveries made in this case found the accused- appellants guilty for committing murder of deceased Ballo. It is to be examined on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly as to whether there evidence is reliable and Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) are not planted witnesses, therefore, the trial Court has rightly recorded the guilt of the accused appellants after appreciation of evidence. 17. Veerpal (PW-1), in his statement, has stated that on 1.11.2001 in the morning, his brother Balloram had gone to see his field and after 20 minutes thereafter he also went to his field. He has further stated that after having heard the shout of the, villagers, he reached the field and saw the accused Vijendra, Kunwarpal, Hubbi, Mohan Singh, Niranjan, Kare @ Jagdish, Gambhir, Mohkam Singh, Neman and Pappu there They were assaulting his brother by lathis, axe, pharsa etc. He has also stated that Vijendra and Kare were having knife, Gambhir, Hubbi and Mohan Singh were having pharsa, Kunwarpal was having an axe, Niranjan was having stones, Mohkam and Neman were having lathis and Pappu was having ballam in his hands. He has also stated that they left the deceased after assaulting him and believing that he had died. Thereafter, he along with other villagers including Ramesh took the deceased to the hospital, Deeg. He has also stated that they left the deceased after assaulting him and believing that he had died. Thereafter, he along with other villagers including Ramesh took the deceased to the hospital, Deeg. He has stated that his brother Balloram died while on way to the hospital. He has further stated that he submitted written report (Ex.P-1) in the Police Station which contains his signature, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was chalked out. The police prepared site plan and site inspection report Ex.P-3 and also prepared memos of simple soil and blood smeared soil. He has identified the accused-appellants in Court. In the cross-examination he has stated that it is correct that they are in inimical terms with the accused party. One of the suggestion that it is correct to say that he along with Ramesh were at their house when the incident took place, was put to the witness to which he admitted. He has further stated in the cross-examination that he saw the incident from road and the place of occurrence was at a distance of about 200 meter. He was on one side of the road whereas Ramesh was on the other side of the road. He has further stated in the cross-examination that the incident was seen by him and Ramesh only. He has also stated that when they saw the incident from a distance of 200 meter they did not shout. 18. PW-2 Ramesh, in his statement, has stated that his brother Ballo had gone to field in the morning on 1.11.2001. He has also stated that he left the house for bringing vegetables and thereafter returned home. Thereafter, he reached at the field and found Mohan Singh, Hubbi, Jagdish, Vijendra, Kunwarpal, Niranjan Mohkam Satveer and Neman in the field armed with pharsa, knife, lathis etc. and were assaulting the deceased. Hubbi, Mohan Singh and Jagdish were having pharsa in their hands, Vijendra was having knife, Kunwarpal was having an axe, Mohkam and Neman were having lathis and Satveer was having ballam in his hands. He has further stated that he saw the incident from a field's distance and out of fear did not go to the place of incident where his brother was being assaulted by the accused. It was further stated that after assaulting the deceased, the accused left the place. He has further stated that he saw the incident from a field's distance and out of fear did not go to the place of incident where his brother was being assaulted by the accused. It was further stated that after assaulting the deceased, the accused left the place. He has also stated that after seeing the dead-body he returned home. He has stated that he, his uncle Rajjo and brother Veerpal took the dead-body and reached at Police Station Deeg and thereafter to hospital and while Ballo was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. He has stated further that the police came there and prepared necessary memos which were signed by him. In the cross-examination he has stated that except him there was no other person who had seen the incident. He has also stated that the deceased was his real brother and was living in the same house. He also stated that nobody from the village reached at the place of incident. He has admitted that in his earlier statement recorded by the police he stated that nobody had reached at the place of incident. In the cross-examination he has further stated that report was reduced in writing by the police which was lodged by Veerpal. He has also stated that he and Veerpal narrated the entire incident to the police. He denied the suggestion that in fact he had not seen the incident and it is on account of the information given to him by one Kallu he reached at the place of incident. He has admitted that he did not try to save his brother when accused were assaulting by deadly arms as he was under fear. He admitted that after seeing the dead-body of his real brother in the field, he left the dead-body at the place of incident and came home. He has also stated that it is also correct that when second time he reached at the place of incident, by that time the dead-body was taken to the hospital. The suggestion put by the defence that Ballo was killed by somebody else which they did not know and accused have been implicated in the case falsely on account of enmity, was denied. 19. The other witnesses produced by the prosecution are also being discussed in brief here. 20. The suggestion put by the defence that Ballo was killed by somebody else which they did not know and accused have been implicated in the case falsely on account of enmity, was denied. 19. The other witnesses produced by the prosecution are also being discussed in brief here. 20. Soran Singh (PW-3), Rajjo (PW-4), Bhup Singh (PW-5), Nahar Singh (PW-6), Rajendra (PW-8), Kallu (PW-9), Netram (PW-10), Rampal (PW-11), Khanchera (PW-12), Sunder (PW-13), Chigga (PW-14), Ramveer (PW-15), Devi Singh (PW-16), Ramesh (PW-17) and Udal (PW-19) are the witnesses in relation to several memos prepared by the police. Out of the above witnesses Rajjo (PW- 4), Bhup Singh (PW-5), Nahar Singh (PW-6), Rajendra (PW-8), Kallu (PW-9), (PW-10), Chanchera (PW-12), Sunder (PW-13), Chigga (PW-14) and Ramveer (PW-15) have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have not supported the prosecution case at all. 21. PW-7 is Shrichand has stated that on 1.11.2001 in the morning when he along with Netram went to see his field, he saw accused Kunwarpal and Vijendra fleeing away from the place where the incident had taken place. He has also stated that there clothes were stained with blood and Ballo was lying on the field. He has stated that several persons had reached at the spot and while deceased Ballo was being taken to the Hospital, Deeg, he died on the way. 22. Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-18) has proved post-mortem report Ex.P-22. 23. Pannalal (PW-20) is head-constable who at the relevant time was in- charge of Malkhana. 24. Ram Chandra Sharma (PW-21), at the relevant time was posted as Sub-inspector in Police Station Kotwali, Deeg. He has stated that a written report was presented before him by Veerpal (PW-.1) which contains his signatures below the police karyavahi at place 'A' to W. He has stated that formal F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was chalked out by him which also contains the signature of Veerpal (PW-1). He has also stated that during the course of investigation, inquest report of deceased Ex.P-8 was prepared by him. He has further stated that other memos were also prepared by him and post-mortem was got conducted on the dead- body. He has stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses and recorded whatever the witnesses stated. He has also stated that during the course of investigation, inquest report of deceased Ex.P-8 was prepared by him. He has further stated that other memos were also prepared by him and post-mortem was got conducted on the dead- body. He has stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses and recorded whatever the witnesses stated. He has also stated that on 2.11.2001, he arrested accused Hubbi at Police Station who gave him information (Ex.P-24) on the basis of which recovery of pharsa was made vide Ex.P-19. He has also stated that the witnesses told him that they saw the incident from the side. of the road. He further stated that he recorded the statements of Veerpal and Ramesh in relation to witnessing the incident and has not recorded the statement of any independent witness. On a question put to him by the defence that why signatures of Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) were not obtained on the memos prepared by him at the spot, he replied that they were not present at that time at the place of occurrence where the memos were prepared. 25. Bhal Singh (PW-22) has stated that on 22.11.2001 he was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police (North) Bharatpur and conducted part of investigation and recorded statement of some of the witnesses namely Nahar Singh, Rajendra Singh, Net Ram, Chhigaram, Ramesh Chandra, Shrichand and Baldev. In the cross-examination he admits that on the information given by Kallu in the village, the family members of Ballo, Ramesh and Veerpal and other persons reached at the spot. 26. Kailash Meena (PW-23) has stated that he conducted part of investigation. He has also stated that he recorded statement of some of the witnesses and he recorded whatever the witnesses stated in their statements. He has stated that accused Vijendra @ Vijay Singh son of Hubbi was arrested by him vide Ex.P-25. Kunwarpal son of Mohan Singh was also arrested by him and vide memo Ex.P-26 gave information that pent which he was wearing at the time of incident has been kept by him in his house and accordingly recovery was effected. He also stated that Kunwarpal also gave information that pharsa has been kept by him in the 'bukhari' of his house, information given was reduced in writing and recovery was made vide Ex.P-28. He also stated that Kunwarpal also gave information that pharsa has been kept by him in the 'bukhari' of his house, information given was reduced in writing and recovery was made vide Ex.P-28. He has stated that the site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared by him. In the last, he stated that subsequently file was taken from him for further investigation in the matter. 27. In the light of the above evidence, what emerges out is : (i) Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) have not stated correct version of the prosecution story. It also becomes doubtful regarding their presence at the place of occurrence as Veerpal (PW-1) has admitted this aspect in the cross-examination that he and his brother were not at the place of occurrence. Ram Chandra Sharma (PW-21) has in his cross-examination stated that Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) reached at the spot on the information given by Kallu in the village. (ii) Veerpal (PW-1) has stated that he saw the incident from a distance of about 200 m. from a side of the road and from the other side of the road Ramesh (PW-2) saw the incident. It has been admitted by them that none of them reached at the spot. Deceased is brother of Veerpal (PW-1). His conduct is not a normal conduct because even on seeing the incident from a distance of 200 m., he did not make any attempt to save the deceased or to shout and further that he left the deceased on the spot without taking care to lift his dead-body. Ramesh (PW-2) has stated in his examination-in-chief that out of fear he did not go to the place of occurrence and when accused left the place of occurrence, he came back to his house and the dead- body was brought by his uncle to the Police Station, Deeg. (iii) Veerpal (PW-1) in relation to recovery of pharsa and pent at the instance of Kunwarpal vide Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-13 respectively stated that at the time when recovery was effected, accused were not there The attesting witness Udal Singh (PW-19) in his cross-examination stated that police called them in the room at that time memos were signed by him and Ramesh. (iv) Shrichand (PW-7) has in his statement stated that he saw accused Kunwarpal and Vijendra running from the place of occurrence and at that time their clothes were stained with blood. When the witness was confronted with his police statement he had stated that he did not see any other person running from the place of incident except the above named persons. He also admitted that on the information of Kallu (PW- 9), Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) along with other villagers reached at the place of occurrence. (v) Bhal Singh (PW-22), the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that the relatives of deceased Ballo, namely; Ramesh, Veerpal and other persons reached at the place of occurrence only after the information was furnished by Kallu to them. (vi) Seizure of blood stained kurta vide Ex.P-10 on 2.11.2001 indicates that at the time of arrest, Hubbi was wearing the kurta which was stained with blood. It is not believable that a person who is involved in the crime having blood on his clothes will keep the clothes with him so that he could preserve incriminating evidence against himself. (vii) FSL report (Ex.C-1) was not tendered in evidence and this report is also not of much help to the prosecution. (viii) Kallu (PW-9) has stated in his cross-examination carried out by the prosecution after he was declared hostile that he went to Ballo and saw his dead-body and thereafter he sent somebody to his house for informing about the incident. 28. In view of above scrutiny of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and particularly Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2), it appears that either they have not seen the incident or have concealed material facts. It also appears that while concealing facts, they have involved various other persons in the case as initially the charge-sheet was filed only against three persons and subsequently on moving application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against other accused, process was issued. As per statement of witnesses, as discussed here-in- above, it appears that after information was received by Veerpal and Ramesh, they reached at the place of incident. The conduct of Veerpal and Ramesh does not appear to be normal conduct. As per statement of witnesses, as discussed here-in- above, it appears that after information was received by Veerpal and Ramesh, they reached at the place of incident. The conduct of Veerpal and Ramesh does not appear to be normal conduct. If the real brother is being assaulted badly, then it is not believable that one of his brother will only see the incident from a distance of 200 meter without any shout and further after the accused left the place of occurrence, will not lift the dead-body from the place of occurrence and leave it at the place of occurrence without taking any care. Most of the witnesses of recovery have been declared hostile by the prosecution and what-ever recoveries have been made are not of much significance so as to connect the accused with the crime. 29. The learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) and convicted the accused appellants, but in our opinion Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) are not reliable witnesses for the reasons discussed while appreciating their evidence and reasons indicated for disbelieving their testimony. It further appears that above two witnesses have either not seen the incident or they have deliberately concealed the genesis of the case, therefore, it is not safe to hold the accused appellants guilty on their testimony and to convict them for committing murder of deceased Ballo. The learned trial Court has hot properly appreciated the evidence of Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2), therefore, in our opinion, the conviction of the accused- appellants recorded by the trial Court needs to be set aside and the accused appellants are liable to be acquitted. 30. In view of fore-going discussion, the answer to points (II) to (IV) is that Veerpal (PW-1) and Ramesh (PW-2) are not reliable witnesses. Either they have not seen the incident or they have been planted or have suppressed the material facts of the prosecution story which has caused prejudice to the accused appellants and the recoveries made in this case are not reliable to base conviction and it is of no help to the prosecution.Point No. (V): 31. In view of the answer to point Nos. In view of the answer to point Nos. (I) to (IV) above, we are of the opinion that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court is not liable to be sustained and the accused appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 32. In the result, both appeals succeed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.8.2007. is hereby set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The accused-appellants Hubbi son of Tej Singh and Kunwar Pal @ Omveer son of Mohan Singh in Appeal No. 1586/2007 are undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Sevar District Bharatpur. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused-appellants Kare @ Jagdish son of Hubbi, Gambhir son of Hubbi in Appeal No. 1586/2007 and Mohakam Singh son of Surajmal; Neman son of Mohakam Singh and Pappu son of Mohakam Singh in Appeal No. 1589/2007 are on bail. They need not surrender their bail bonds.Appeals allowed. *******