JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants Bhoor Singh S/o Nan Singh, Amar Singh S/o Guman Singh and Guman Singh S/o Nan Singh against the judgment dated 23.4.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 3/1985, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 100/-, so also the accused-appellants were convicted for offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Further the accused-appellants Bhoor Singh and Guman Singh were convicted for offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. also and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.7.1985 at 3.30 P.M., PW-1 Pratap Singh S/o Nawal Singh (complainant) lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Pahada, District Udaipur. In the said F.I.R. it was contended that on the day before, i.e. on 29.7.1985, in the afternoon the complainant went to the forest to graze the cattle and was coming back at around 2 O'clock. When he reached near the shop of Champa Lal Mahajan in the village, he heard hue and cry of his father which was coming from the nearby agricultural field. Upon hearing the noise, he ran to the place from where the noise was coming, then he saw that Bhoor Singh S/o Nan Snigh, Amar Singh S/o Guman Singh and Guman Singh S/o Nan Singh were beating his father Nawal Singh with Kulhari, Kudali and lathi. Amar Singh was carrying Kulhari, Bhoor Singh was carrying Kudali and Guman Singh was carrying lathi. As per the complainant, Amar Singh gave a blow from the sharp and blunt side of Kulhari upon the left leg of his father Nawal Singh and due to the said injury, knee of his father was broken and blood started oozing out. Likewise, Bhoor Singh gave a blow from the blunt side of Kudali upon his father's head and due to that injury, he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Guman Singh gave blow with lathi when his father was lying on the ground. Likewise, Bhoor Singh gave a blow from the blunt side of Kudali upon his father's head and due to that injury, he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Guman Singh gave blow with lathi when his father was lying on the ground. Due to the above injuries, his father Nawal Singh became unconscious and when the complainant intervened, Bhoor Singh gave a blow on his head from the blunt side of Kudali, Guman Singh gave lathi blow upon his face and Bhoor Singh with the intention to kill him, gave a Kulhari blow upon his head. It is further stated that at the place of occurrence when the complainant raised hue and cry, his mother, wife and brother Basan Singh came on the spot and all the three accused ran away to the nearby field. Thereafter he and his family members carried his father Nawal Singh to his home with the help of one Puna Meena Dodiyar. His father remained unconscious during the entire night and thereafter on the day of lodging F.I.R., i.e. on 30.7.1985, at 3.00 A.M. in the morning, after vomiting blood he passed away. Thereafter in the morning of 30.7.1985, delay in filing the F.I.R. was caused because after death of his father, the complainant went to the Kherwara Court to attend hearing of a case and after coming back, he reached the Police Station at about 3.30 P.M. alongwith one Lal Singh and gave the above information. 3. Upon the aforesaid information, an F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) bearing No. 71/1985 dated 30.7.1985 was registered. After registration of F.I.R., usual investigation was conducted and in the investigation, body of deceased Nawal Singh was taken to the hospital by the Investigating Officer Bakhtawar Singh, SHO Police Station Pahada (PW-11) and Ram Lal Constable No 1652 and postmortem was conducted at 5.30 P.M. on 30.7.1985. The accused-appellants were arrested during investigation and statements of eye-witnesses and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately challan was filed against all the three accused appellants before the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, from where the case was committed to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Udaipur and ultimately the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, where the trial took place. 4. 4. The learned trial Judge after framing the charges against the accused appellants for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code., so also for offence under Sections 447 and 323 Indian Penal Code., proceed for trial. During the trial, the prosecution to prove its case produced as many as 12 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Pratap Singh S/o Nawal Singh (complainant), PW-2 Smt. Suraj W/o Pratap Singh (wife of the complainant), PW-3 Basan Singh S/o Nawal Singh (son of the deceased), PW-4 Chunni W/o Nawal Singh (wife of the deceased), PW-5 Khuman Singh S/o Saju Singh, PW-6 Puna S/o Savji, PW-7 Lal Singh S/o Kalu Singh, PW-8 Amara S/o Wala, PW-9 Ram Singh S/o Thawar Singh, PW-10 Chaman Singh S/o Jalam Singh (Head Constable Police Station Pahada), PW-11 Bakhtawar Singh S/o Naru Singh (Investigating Officer and SHO Police Station Pahada) and PW-12 Dr. Vishnu Datt Tiwari. From the side of the prosecution, 23 documents were exhibited and after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, statements of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded and thereafter, from the side of accused-appellants, one witness DW-1 Dita Singh S/o Kodar Singh (brother-in-law of deceased Nawal Singh) was produced in defence. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, finally decided the matter vide the impugned judgment dated 23.4.1986, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 100/-, so also for one month's simple imprisonment for committing offence under Section 447 Indian Penal Code. and further the accused appellants Bhoor Singh and Guman Singh were convicted for offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. also and sentenced for one month's simple imprisonment. 5. In this appeal, while challenging the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, so also the learned trial Court has not properly assessed the evidentiary value of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and committed error while convicting the accused appellants for the alleged offence, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that admittedly as per the prosecution case the occurrence took place on 29.7.1985 at about 2.00 P.M. and after the alleged incident, the injured Nawal Singh was taken to home by the complainant and other family members and no F.I.R. was filed on 29.7.1985. Thereafter as per the complainant PW-1 Pratap Singh himself, during the whole night his father Nawal Singh remained unconscious and in the morning of 30.7.1985 at about 3.00 A.M. he died and thereafter the complainant went to Kherwara Court to attend hearing of a case and after coming back from the Court, he went to the Police Station Pahada for registration of the F.I.R. This conduct of the complainant itself speaks that there is no explanation on record why the F.I.R. was not filed immediately after the occurrence took place and why injured Nawal Singh was not brought to the hospital and Police Station on 29.7.1985 when the prosecution case is that he became unconscious at the place of occurrence. Further as per the statement in F.I.R., even after death of his father Nawal Singh, the complainant Pratap Singh went to Kherwara Court to attend hearing of a case and after coming back from Kherwara, he lodged the F.I.R. In this view of the matter, it is obvious from the facts that the conduct of the complainant Pratap Singh clearly speaks that he has not chosen to file any F.I.R. on the day when the occurrence took place and further it is totally un-understandable thing that after death of his father, he went to the Court at Kherwara and after attending the Court, he came back and then filed F.I.R. at Police Station Pahada. The whole facts narrated by the complainant for not filing F.I.R. soon after the occurrence clearly speaks that the prosecution story is totally doubtful and the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused-appellants are far from truth. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting our attention towards the fact that the accused-appellant Bhoor Singh received 8 injuries which is evident from the injury report (Ex.P-14), but there is no explanation on record with regard to these injuries. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting our attention towards the fact that the accused-appellant Bhoor Singh received 8 injuries which is evident from the injury report (Ex.P-14), but there is no explanation on record with regard to these injuries. None of the prosecution witnesses or Investigating Officer has explained as to how these injuries were sustained upon the body of the accused Bhoor Singh, therefore, the prosecution case is totally doubtful for the simple reason that there were 8 injuries upon the body of the accused-appellant Bhoor Singh, he was examined by the Medical Jurist of the Government Hospital, Dungarpur and the said injury report of Bhoor Singh was also called by the Investigating Officer in the investigation and filed alongwith the challan and in the trial, the said injury report has been exhibited as Ex.P-14 by the SHO Bakhtawar Singh (PW-11). The X-ray report of Bhoor Singh was also called from the Government Hopsital and filed alongwith the challan and was exhibited by the Investigating Officer as Ex.P-15, but no explanation is on the record as to how these injuries were sustained to the accused-appellant Bhoor Singh. The Investigating Officer PW-11 Bakhtawar Singh is accepting that in the investigation he brought the body of the deceased Nawal Singh for postmortem and Pratap Singh was also brought to the hospital for examination, but why he has not made any investigation with regard to the injuries upon the body of the accused-appellant Bhoor Singh has not been disclosed by him in his statement, meaning thereby first of all F.I.R. was admittedly registered more than 24 hours after the incident, so also the injured Nawal Singh was taken to home after the incident on 29.7.1985 and was not brought to the hospital for treatment knowingly well that he was unconscious, nor any F.I.R. was filed on the said day and after his death on the next day on 30.7.1985 at about 3.30 A.M., F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Pratap Singh, meaning thereby there is no explanation on record for delay in filing F.I.R., nor any explanation is on the record as to how the injuries upon the body of the accused-appellant were sustained and on both these grounds the prosecution case becomes doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of PW-2 Smt. Suraj, PW-3 Basan Singh and PW-4 Smt. Chunni being interested witnesses, but has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Pratap Singh, but as per the facts narrated above, the conduct of PW-1 Pratap Singh, who is son of the deceased Nawal Singh, itself is doubtful because as per his own statement, he has not taken his father to the hospital after the incident on 29.7.1985 and on the next day when he died, then first of all he did not choose to inform the police, but went to Kherwara Court for attending a case and thereafter when he came back, F.I.R. was lodged by him. In this view of the matter, as per the learned counsel for the appellants, no conviction can be made, but the learned trial Court has committed error while relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Pratap Singh, therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellants is totally illegal, erroneous and based upon perverse finding of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no blood stained weapons were recovered from the accused-appellants, all the prosecution witnesses are relatives, therefore, they are interested witnesses and admittedly the incident took place in the agricultural field of the accused appellants in the broad daylight, but no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused-appellants. Even Champa Lal Mahajan, near whose shop the complainant heard the noise of his father, has not been produced as a prosecution witness, therefore, in the absence of any independent witness, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries received by the accused-appellant, so also there are serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries received by the accused-appellant, so also there are serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. While inviting our attention towards the statement of DW-1 Dita Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased Nawal Singh, it is argued that as per his statement, the story of occurrence was altogether different which is not supporting the prosecution case and his testimony cannot be disbelieved because he is real brother-in-law of the deceased Nawal Singh, who remained at the house of Nawal Singh in the night of 29.7.1985 and was present there till his death. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements, the accused-appellants are entitled for acquittal because the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of independent witness and when there is serious doubt upon prosecution case, it is not safe to convict any accused, so also when the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in filing the F.I.R. so also has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused, then the accused-appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention towards the following judgments : (1) AIR 1988 SC 702 (Lajo v. Sukhdev Singh & Ors.) (2) AIR 1976 SC 2263 (Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar) (3) JT 2009 (12) SC 277 (State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh) 11. In the above referred judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the prosecution is not able to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, then they are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. In this case also, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, so also has not explain how 8 injuries were sustained by the accused-appellant Bhoor Singh, therefore, this appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in this case while adducing cogent evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in this case while adducing cogent evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of eye-witness PW-1 Pratap Singh who has deposed in his statement that by his own eyes he saw the incident and categorically stated that the injuries were inflicted with Kulhari, Kudali and lathi by the accused-appellants and it resulted into the death of his father Nawal Singh. The testimony of PW-1 Pratap Singh is supported by other eye-witnesses PW-2 Smt. Suraj, PW-3 Basan Singh and PW-4 Smt. Chunni and injuries were explained by Doctor PW-12 Dr. Vishnu Datt Tiwari who performed the postmortem, meaning thereby the prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court, therefore, the judgment delivered by the trial Court which is impugned in this appeal is not required to be interfered because the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants while assessing the reliability of the prosecution witnesses including eye-witnesses. Further it is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable in this case because the reason for delay in filing the F.I.R. has been explained by the complainant Pratap Singh (PW-1) in the F.I.R. itself that on the day on which the incident took place though his father became unconscious, but his family members took his father to home, but unfortunately in the night he died, therefore, after the death the F.I.R. was filed in the Police Station, meaning thereby in the F.I.R. itself the delay in filing the F.I.R. has been explained, therefore, there is no question of interference in this matter, hence, this appeal may be dismissed. 13. We have heard the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the record and judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. In this case certain important facts are not disputed by either of the parties, which are as follows : (1) As per the prosecution, the incident took place on 29.7.1985 at about 2 O'clock and admittedly after the incident, injured Nawal Singh, who died subsequently in the next day morning, was not brought to the hospital for treatment. In this case certain important facts are not disputed by either of the parties, which are as follows : (1) As per the prosecution, the incident took place on 29.7.1985 at about 2 O'clock and admittedly after the incident, injured Nawal Singh, who died subsequently in the next day morning, was not brought to the hospital for treatment. (2) The F.I.R. was not filed on 29.7.1985 soon after the occurrence, but filed after the death of the deceased Nawal Singh at home, that too after attending hearing at Kherwara Court by PW-1 Pratap Singh, son of the deceased, at about 3.30 P.M. on 30.7.1985. (3) Admittedly the Investigating Officer PW-11 Bakhtawar Singh has deposed in his statement that during investigation accused-appellant Bhoor Singh was examined by the Medical Jurist of the Government Hospital, Dungarpur and the injury report as well as the X-ray report was summoned by him from the said hospital and were placed before the Court alongwith challan and exhibited in trial as Ex.P-14 and P-15, meaning thereby 8 injuries which are mentioned in Ex.P-14 were not explained by the prosecution nor any investigation was made by the Investigating Officer to prove how these injuries were sustained to the accused-appellant, but in the statement of DW-1 Dita Singh, brother-in-law of deceased Nawal Singh, that story was altogether different. (4) Admittedly no blood stained weapon was recovered from, the accused-appellants. (5) All the witnesses are interested witnesses because PW-2 Smt. Suraj is wife of the complainant Pratap Singh (PW-1), PW-3 Basan Singh is son of the deceased Nawal Singh and PW-4 Chunni is wife of the deceased Nawal Singh, meaning thereby all the eye-witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. 14. Upon the above admitted facts, we have scanned and assessed the credibility and evidentiary value of the prosecution evidence. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because as per the prosecution story itself, the occurrence took place on 29.7.1985 at about 2 O'clock and as per the statement of the complainant PW-1 Pratap Singh and all the eye-witnesses, deceased Nawal Singh became unconscious on the spot due to the injuries caused to him by the accused-appellants. If it was so, then why deceased Nawal Singh was not brought to the hospital for treatment and why the F.I.R. was not filed soon after the occurrence on 29.7.1985, is not explained, which fact itself speaks that the prosecution has concocted a false story and after framing story to involve the accused-appellants, F.I.R. was filed after the death of the deceased Nawal Singh, that too without any independent evidence. It is also very strange that upon the information given by the complainant PW-1 Pratap Singh, straightway case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. was registered by the SHO and thereafter he went to the house of the deceased Nawal Singh where Ex.P-8 Panchnama was prepared after inspection of the body of the deceased Sigh. It is also very strange that upon the information given by the complainant PW-1 Pratap Singh, straightway case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. was registered by the SHO and thereafter he went to the house of the deceased Nawal Singh where Ex.P-8 Panchnama was prepared after inspection of the body of the deceased Sigh. Upon perusal of Ex.P-8 Panchnama, it emerges that no injuries were found upon the head of the deceased upon inspection at about 4.00 P.M. on 30.7.1985 by the Investigating Officer when Ex.P-8 was prepared in which the following injuries were found : " eqroQh dk fujh{k.k ftLi flj ls ikao rd dk fd;k tkrk gSA 1- flj % ns[kk x;k flj ij dksbZ tkfgjk pksV utj ugha vkrh gS lj ij cMs+&cM+s cky gS djhc 1&1 bap cM+s dh lQn dkys gSaA 2- yykV % ns[kk x;k rks dksbZ tkghjk pksV utj ugha vkrk gSA 3- vkWa[ksa % cUn gksdj dksbZ tkghjk pksV utj ugha vkrh gSA 4- dku % ns[kk x;k rks dksbZ tkghjk pksV utj ugha vkrh gSA 5- eqag % ij dksbZ pksV dk fu'kku ugha eqag ds vUnj ls ekewyh [kwu tSls ikuh gS nkar] thcku cnLrqj gSA 6- ukd % ukd ij dksbZ pksV dk fu'kku ugha gSA 7- xyk % ns[kk x;k rks dksbZ tkghjk pksV dk fu'kku ugha gSA 8- Nkrh % ns[kh xbZ ckgjh txg ij dksbZ pksV dk fu'kku ugha gSA 9- gkFk % nksuksa gkFkksa ij dksbZ pksV dk fu'kku ugha gSA 10- ikao % ck;s ikao ds xqVus ds mij ckgjh Hkkx ij ,d pksV djhcu 1 bap xgjh o yEckbZ lok bap pkSM+kbZ vk/kk bap gksdj [kwu fudydj te jgk gS rFkk ikao xqVuksa ls mij dksbZ Hkkjh pksV yxus ls VwV x;k gS ikao fgykus ls pkjksa rjQ eqM tkrk gS ikao dh gM~Mh fcYdqy VwV xbZ gS peM+h ij pksV yxus ls uhy xqy fu'kku gks [kwu te jgs gSA fte.ks ikao ij pksV dk dksbZ fu'kku ugha gSA 11- xqIr vax dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k rks dksbZ pksV dk fu'kku ughaA 12- yk'k dks mYV iqYV dj ns[kh xbZ vkSj dksbZ pksV tkghjk utj ugha vkrk gSA " 15. Upon perusal of the above report, it emerges that no injuries were found at the time of inspection by the Investigation Officer on vital part of the body and in the postmortem report, as per Dr. Upon perusal of the above report, it emerges that no injuries were found at the time of inspection by the Investigation Officer on vital part of the body and in the postmortem report, as per Dr. Vishnu Datt Tiwari (PW-12) 4 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased which are as follows: " 1- yslsjsVsM oqUM 4 lseh x ½ lseh ck;h rjQ dku ds mij fLFkr FkkA flj ij ;g pksV FkhA vkxs dh rjQ ihNs dh vksj tkrk gqvk FkkA 2- yslsjsVsM oqUM 2 - ½ lseh x ½ lseh mij okys gksaV ds nk;s fgLls ij frjNkA 3- yslsjsVsM oqUM 1 lseh x ¼ lseh mij okys gksB ds cka;s fgLls ij [kM+k oqUM fLFkr FkkA 4- ,czstu ¾ lseh x ½ ck;sa gkFk ds bUMsDl fQaxj ds mij dh rjQ ihNs dh rjQ fLFkrA " 16. Out of above 4 injuries, 3 are lacerated wounds and one is abrasion, meaning thereby the complainant party has not produced clear picture before the Court and as per the opinion of the doctor given in the postmortem report, the cause of death was comma due to fracture at the skull bone and injury to the vital organ brain and further the doctor has opined that these injuries were caused approximately within 12 to 18 hours, meaning thereby the deceased was examined on 30.7.1985 at 5-30 P.M. and the occurrence took place on 29.7.1985 at 2.00 P.M., which is duration of more than 24 hours and this fact also becomes doubtful whether these injuries were sustained by the deceased when the incident took place because just after the alleged occurrence, the injured Nawal Singh, who died subsequently as per the prosecution case, was not brought to the hospital for treatment and as per the doctor who performed the postmortem, the duration of the injuries found upon the body was 12 to 18 hours before conducting the postmortem by him, meaning thereby the prosecution case is totally doubtful because the F.I.R. was not filed soon after the alleged offence, the deceased was not brought to the hospital after the occurrence and further after the death, obviously the F.I.R. was to be filed by the son or other family members immediately, but as per the statement of PW-1 Pratap Singh, after the death of his father Nawal Singh, he went to Kherwara Court to attend a case and after coming back from the said Court, F.I.R. was lodged by him at about 3.30 P.M. In our opinion, such type of conduct of son of the deceased PW-1 Pratap Singh creates serious doubt with regard to allegations levelled by him in the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1), therefore, in our opinion, the whole case of the prosecution is doubtful because the prosecution has not proved its case by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the Court. 17. 17. Upon assessing the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution, we are of the view that all the witnesses are interested witnesses as the PW-1 Pratap Singh is son of the deceased, PW-2 Smt. Suraj is daughter-in-law of the deceased, PW-3 Basan Singh is second son of the deceased and PW-4 Smt. Chunni is wife of the deceased, but none of the relative has deposed in their statements why they did not bring the deceased Nawal Singh to the hospital soon after the occurrence and this fact itself is sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. It is beyond imagination that a wife and sons are not taking injured to the hospital*and waiting for his death and thereafter filing F.I.R. in the Police Station. In this view of the matter, the testimony of these interested witnesses deserves to be discredited because there is no ground to accept such type of conduct of so-called eye-witnesses. In our opinion, a concocted and false story has been fabricated by the prosecution against the accused appellant while not explaining delay in filing the F.I.R. and not explaining the reason why the deceased was not brought to the hospital after the occurrence, therefore, the conviction made by the trial Court has no legal sanctity to stand before the eye of law. 18. We have also examined the statement of defence witness DW-1 Dita Singh, the brother-in-law of deceased Nawal Singh, who was present at the house of the deceased till his death 'in the morning of 30.7.1985. This witness being close relative of the deceased deposed in his statement that Nawal Singh was conscious in the night and he narrated altogether different story which cannot be disbelieved, therefore, on this ground also, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. 19. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar , it has been held that the non-explanation of injuries found upon the person of accused by the prosecution is manifest defect of the prosecution case. Paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment read as follows : "17. Thus in view of the inherent improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested or inimical nature of the evidence and other circumstances pointed out by us, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Thus in view of the inherent improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested or inimical nature of the evidence and other circumstances pointed out by us, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Normally this Court does not interfere in an appeal by special leave with concurrent finding of fact, but this is one of these cases where the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse and where the High Court has not considered important circumstances which completely demolish the prosecution case. In fact the High Court has hardly made any real attempt to analyse or discuss the evidence and has merely affirmed the finding of the Sessions Judge by narrating the evidence relied upon by it. We have already pointed out that one of the most important, points arising in a Criminal trial, namely, the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the prosecution, the High Court has not only committed an error of fact but an error of law by showing a lack of proper appreciation of the principles decided by this Court. For these reasons, therefore, we think there are special circumstances in the present case which have compelled us to interfere in this appeal by special leave. 18. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The convictions and sentences passed on the appellants are set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith." 20. In recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in JT 2009 (12) SC 277 State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh while reiterating the proposition laid down in the judgment rendered in Laxmi Singh's case (supra), it has been held that omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which completes in probability with that of the prosecution case. 21. 21. In this view of the matter, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh , we are of the view that the prosecution case is totally doubtful and it is not safe to convict the accused-appellants for the charges levelled against them because the evidence led by the prosecution deserves to be discredited on the ground that the evidence is not trustworthy and creating volumes of doubt. 22. In this view of the matter, upon the discussion made above, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 23. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 23.4.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 3/1985 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants are hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them. They are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged.Appeal allowed. *******