JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.20/2002, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C.The learned trial court had convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to further undergo sentence of 6 months R.I. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on a written report (Ex.P-1) filed by Vikram Singh (PW-1) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur. It was averred in the report that Prabhu Singh, father of the informant had, as usual after dinner, gone to sleep in his Nohra near Pokhar, at about 9.30 pm. on 20.04.2002. Further, it is stated that on the next day early morning at about 4.00 am. when the informant came to the Nohra for providing fodder, etc. to his cattles that he saw Vijaypal Singh and Brijendra Singh, covillagers, along with one other person, near his father. Further, he had seen that Vijaypal was pressing the neck of his father and Brijendra Singh and the other person had caught hold of his legs. It was also stated that Prabhu, the father of the informant was trying to set himself free from the accused persons. On raising of a hue and cry by the informant, Randhir Singh, Hari Singh and Girraj Singh had come at the scene of occurrence. After having seen the informant and other persons, the accused fled away.It was also stated in the report that on the previous day i.e. 20.04.2002, a theft of six bags of grains was committed from a temple. Vijaypal Singh and Brijendra Singh are said to be the persons who had stolen the bags and it was the father of the informant who had seen them. In respect of the theft from the temple, a meeting of the villagers was to be held on 21.04.2002. It was alleged that the accused persons had threatened the deceased Prabhu that they would see as to how he goes before the Panchayat. On account of the said animosity, the accused persons had committed murder of the father of the informant. 3. On the aforesaid report, a first information report No.54/2002 (Ex.P/12) came to be registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, at 12.15 pm. On account of the said animosity, the accused persons had committed murder of the father of the informant. 3. On the aforesaid report, a first information report No.54/2002 (Ex.P/12) came to be registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, at 12.15 pm. on 21.04.2002 for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed challan before the concerning Magistrate against two persons, namely Vijaypal Singh and Brijendra Singh. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions which was thereafter transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur for trial.The trial in the case commenced with framing of charges against the accused persons for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution had, in support of its case, produced 13 witnesses and had filed 18 documents which were collected during the course of investigation and were duly exhibited by the learned trial court. Subsequently, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of the enmity with Vikram Singh and his family members. The accused persons had not produced any evidence in their defence.It is to be noted that during the course of trial, the accused Brijendra Singh absconded on 21.08.2002 and as such, the proceeding continued only against the accused Vijaypal Singh. On conclusion of the trial and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment whereby he had convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Vijaypal Singh, as aforementioned. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has, with all vehemence, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial is wholly illegal and erroneous which deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further, he has submitted that the prosecution has grossly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the first information report, the very foundation of the prosecution, is doubtful and the edifice of the entire prosecution case is shaken. It has also been submitted by him that in the instant case, the first information report is postmortem oriented and it is the case of the prosecution itself that only after the police had come into action and postmortem of the deceased was conducted, the instant first information report came to be lodged. It has also been submitted by him that in the instant case, the first information report is postmortem oriented and it is the case of the prosecution itself that only after the police had come into action and postmortem of the deceased was conducted, the instant first information report came to be lodged. He had also submitted that after recording the information in Rojnamcha, the police proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Surat Lash (Ex.P/8) and Panchayatnama (Ex.P/9). Thereafter, the corpus of the deceased was carried to the hospital where the postmortem was conducted. Therefore, the report handed over to the police officer subsequently in the hospital is hit by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. and cannot be taken as legal evidence.It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecution had come with the case that neck of the deceased was pressed by the accused appellant, resulting in his death by asphyxia. However, on examination of the postmortem report, it is revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia brought about as a result of antemortem pressure on mouth, nostril and neck (i.e. throttling) which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The medical jurist, in his statement before the learned trial court has deposed that the death of the accused was asphyxia due to strangulation. Apart from it, a look to Surat Lash and the Panchayat nama goes to show that there were minor injuries, in the nature of abrasion, on the neck and shoulder of the deceased whereas according to the postmortem report, there were 13 injuries in all. According to the learned counsel for the accused appellant, the prosecution had not come with a clear case as to who had caused the fatal injury to the deceased which had resulted in his death, as given out in Postmortem Report. As a matter of fact, the complainant party did not know that Prabhu was murdered because none of the visible injury points out in that direction. 5. As a matter of fact, the complainant party did not know that Prabhu was murdered because none of the visible injury points out in that direction. 5. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant, after taking us to the medical evidence on record and showing semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased, is that the death of Prabhu had taken place within 4 to 4 ½ hours after he had taken meal at his residence and had come to sleep in the bada. But it is alleged that the deceased had died in the morning of 21.04.2002. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution that when the informant had reached the bada, he saw that his father was struggling on account of injuries sustained by him. According to the medical evidence on record, it is evident that death had occurred on or around mid night of 21rd or 22th April of 2002. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has not only failed to prove as to who had committed the murder but has suppressed the truth about the time as well as the manner in which the death of Prabhu had taken place. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused appellant deserves the benefit of doubt and he be acquitted, after setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court and submitted that the same is based on the evidence on record produced before it. He has also submitted that it is well proved from the material before the trial court, particularly the medical evidence that the deceased Prabhu had died on account of the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the death of Prabhu was homicidal. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is more than clear that there was motive behind the commission of the offence by the accused appellant. Therefore, the death of Prabhu was homicidal. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that from the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is more than clear that there was motive behind the commission of the offence by the accused appellant. From the very beginning, the prosecution had come with the case that because the deceased had seen the two accused persons committing the offence of theft of bags of grains from the temple that the accused persons wanted to do away with him, so as to remove the only evidence against them. It was for that purpose in mind that the accused persons, a day earlier to the meeting of the villagers which was called on account of the said theft, had murdered Prabhu Singh.He has also submitted that so far as the statement of the prosecution witnesses are concerned, including that of the investigating officer, there are minor omissions and inconsistencies but that cannot be a ground to throw out the entire case of the prosecution. It is an established fact, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, that the informant had reached the place of occurrence while the accused persons were in the bada and other villagers had rushed to the bada soon after hearing the hue and cry. The fact that death of Prabhu had taken place due to the injuries caused to him, is corroborated by the medical evidence on record and there was a clear motive for the accused persons to have committed the said offence. In such view of the matter, there is no room of doubt that it was the accused Vijaypal, Brijendra and one another who had committed the crime. Consequently, the learned trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offences alleged. 7. On careful perusal of the evidence on record of the learned trial court, it is revealed that the information with regard to the death of Prabhu was received on telephone by the police, through former Sarpanch Dalveer Singh on 20.04.2002 at 6.05 am. The said information was then recorded in the Rojnamcha (869) (Ex.P/13), at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur. On careful perusal of the evidence on record of the learned trial court, it is revealed that the information with regard to the death of Prabhu was received on telephone by the police, through former Sarpanch Dalveer Singh on 20.04.2002 at 6.05 am. The said information was then recorded in the Rojnamcha (869) (Ex.P/13), at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur. On having received the information, Abhay Kishore Dubey, Sub- Inspector, along with his force had departed for the village Jaghina.At the place of occurrence, police saw the deadbody of the deceased Prabhu Singh son of Kamal Singh and then proceeded to draw a memo Surat Lash (Ex.P/8). The said memo was prepared at 7.00 am. in presence of Padam Singh (PW-2) and Virendra Singh (PW10 3). In the memo of Surat Lash, the police recorded the detail of external appearance of the deadbody of Prabhu; the cloths; the injuries on his person; etc. The injuries noted by the police were abrasions on back of left hand, bruises on the right shoulder as well as on the neck. No other injury was found on the person of the deceased Prabhu Singh, even after having looked to it by changing the sides. The police had then prepared a memo of Panchayatnama (Ex.P/9), at about 7.20 am on 21.04.2002, in presence of five motbirs, namely Padam Singh (PW-2), Girraj Singh (PW-6), Harpal (PW-5), Virendra Singh (PW-3) and Chhittar Singh (PW-4). After having looked into the injuries sustained by the deceased, in presence of the aforesaid motbirs, their opinion with regard to the cause of death was sought and all of them had stated that they would accept the one given in postmortem. The relevant extract is as follows: " jk; iapku& e`rd dh ekSr ds ckjs esa ge iapku iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ dks gh ekSr dke dkj.k LohdkjsaxsA " 8. The police along with the villagers had carried the deadbody of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Bharatpur where the postmortem came to be conducted at 11.00 am. on 21.04.2002. The postmortem report was prepared by Medical Board of three doctors, namely Dr. Ashok Mathur, Dr. Banai Singh and Dr. B.L. Meena. The police along with the villagers had carried the deadbody of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Bharatpur where the postmortem came to be conducted at 11.00 am. on 21.04.2002. The postmortem report was prepared by Medical Board of three doctors, namely Dr. Ashok Mathur, Dr. Banai Singh and Dr. B.L. Meena. A perusal of the postmortem report goes to show that as regards to the information furnished by the police, it has been noted that the cause of death is unknown.Similarly, at serial No.4 in the category of external appearance, it has been noted that mark of ligature on neck, dissection, etc. was nil. At item No.4 in the category abdomen in the postmortem report, it is mentioned that the stomach contained about 500 cc. of semi-digested food. The injuries on the body of the deceased had been noted in the postmortem report as 13 in number. The said injuries were antemoretm in nature. The opinion of the members of the Medical Board recorded in the report with regard to cause of death is by asphyxia, brought about as a result of antemortem pressure over mouth, nostrill and neck (i.e. throttling), which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is to be noted that the viscera was also preserved in a jar in order to find out any signs of poisoning and it was sent to the laboratory. The F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/18) was received and the result of the examination was negative for all types of poisons, etc. It would not be out of place to mention here that Naksha Mauka was prepared by the police (Ex.P/2) in which a note had been put by the investigating officer that the complainant had stated that he would file a report after conduct of postmortem of the deceased Prabhu Singh. The note reads as under: " uksV& ekSds ij Qfj0 us fjiksVZ u nsdj ckn iksLV ekVZe izHkqflag ds fjiksVZ nsus gsrq ekSf[kd dgkA " 9. Thereafter, a report was lodged by Vikram Singh (PW-1) to the investigating officer at Government Hospital, Bharatpur. The note reads as under: " uksV& ekSds ij Qfj0 us fjiksVZ u nsdj ckn iksLV ekVZe izHkqflag ds fjiksVZ nsus gsrq ekSf[kd dgkA " 9. Thereafter, a report was lodged by Vikram Singh (PW-1) to the investigating officer at Government Hospital, Bharatpur. Although the contents of the report have already been mentioned above, but it is to be reiterated that the informant had specifically mentioned in the report that the accused Vijaypal Singh was pressing the neck of his father Prabhu Singh and Brijendra Singh along with others had caught hold of the legs, from which the deceased tried to free himself. However, the allegation are not corroborated by the medical evidence on record particularly in respect of cause of death. It has been specifically alleged in the report that the father of the informant had been murdered by the accused on account of the enmity because the deceased was knowing about the theft committed by the accused in the temple. The informant had mentioned the name of three persons Randhir Singh, Hari Singh and Girraj Singh which are said to have reached the place of incident after hearing the hue and cry raised by him. 10. The preparation of the aforesaid documents, namely Naksha Mauka, Surat Lash and the Panchayatnama, during the course of investigation has been fully established by deposition of prosecution witnesses Padam Singh (PW-2) and Virendra Singh (PW- 3), before the learned trial court. As regards the Panchayatnama (Ex.P/9), the other motbirs such as Chhittar Singh, Harpal and Giriraj Singh have fully proved that the same were prepared in their presence. 11. From the aforesaid investigation conducted and the documents prepared by the police, it clearly emerges that because of telephonic information by the former Sarpanch Dalveer Singh, the police had come into action and prepared Surat Lash; Naksha Mauka; Panchayatnama and got the postmortem of the deceased conducted and only thereafter the first information had come to be lodged. It is further noteworthy that the informant as well as the other prosecution witnesses, though present at the time of preparation of documents by the police, had not submitted any report even on asking by the police as deposed by the investigating officer and it was categorically stated that the same shall be filed after the postmortem. It is further noteworthy that the informant as well as the other prosecution witnesses, though present at the time of preparation of documents by the police, had not submitted any report even on asking by the police as deposed by the investigating officer and it was categorically stated that the same shall be filed after the postmortem. This clearly raises the question as to whether in the instant case, the first information report which is postmortem oriented and it had come to be registered not only after police had come in action but part of the investigation had already been conducted, can be said to be sustainable in the eye of law. 12. It is settled principle of law that delay in lodging first information report renders prosecution story suspicious and if an FIR is lodged after commencement of investigation then the same is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 677 , had held as under: “37. The worst feature of the prosecution case is the inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. The incident took place in the night between 21st and 22 March, 1985. The brother and the parents of Krishna suspected a foul play in her death. And yet they remained silent and present the typed F.I.R. Ex.P/1 on 28-3- 1985 before the S.P. Jhunjhunu who was camping at Pilani. Om Prakash PW/2- the father of the victim was present when the inquest report of the victim's dead body was prepared. He also took part in the proceeding under section 174 Cr.P.C. And yet no report was lodged at the police station nor any complaint was made against the police officers for not taking any action in the matter. This delay in F.I.R. is a serious matter and renders the prosecution story highly suspicious.” Similarly in the case of Fatta v. The State of Rajasthan and another, 1992 (1) RLW 157, Division Bench of this Court had held that in the circumstances, as mentioned below, creates a doubt in the prosecution case and it had observed as under:- “10. There is one more circumstance, which creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. There is one more circumstance, which creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. PW 9 Poona Ram has stated that he reported the matter at the Police Station in the night of May 19, 1977, and the police immediately thereafter came to the place of the occurrence, saw the site and the dead body and made certain enquiries, but the report was not written in the night and it was written on the next day, i.e., May 20, 1977 in the morning. The First Information Report therefore, appears to be a post-investigation. This suspicion further finds support from the fact that the First Information Report reached in the Court on May 23, 1977, while the Court is situated in the same town and located at a distance of about one kilometre from the place of the occurrence. If the report of the incident would have been registered on the same day then it should have reached in the Court on the next day. This circumstance, also, creates a doubt in the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi Gohar etc. v. The State of Maharashtra, 1998 Cr.L.R. (SC) 618, held in para 7 that: “7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance gone through the evidence relevant to the question which we have to now answer. On going through the record we have found certain disturbing features in the prosecution case which remain unexplained and go a long way to discredit it. In his statement, which was recorded as the F.I.R. (Ext.24) P.W.2 stated, that 'Vijaya' and 'Keshya' were among the miscreants. He, however, did not disclose therein their surnames nor did he name any other miscreant. Curiously, however, we find that in the formal F.I.R prepared on the basis of the statement of P.W.2 the following names have been shown in the column meant for recording the names of the accused: "1. Vijay alias Vijay Utkar 2. Keshya alias Kishore Marrya, Laxa and other 9/10 persons". Curiously, however, we find that in the formal F.I.R prepared on the basis of the statement of P.W.2 the following names have been shown in the column meant for recording the names of the accused: "1. Vijay alias Vijay Utkar 2. Keshya alias Kishore Marrya, Laxa and other 9/10 persons". When cross examined on this point, P.W.2 admitted that at the time he lodged the FIR he did not know that the that the surname of Vijay was 'Utkar' and he came to know about his surname from the papers. So far as Keshya is concerned he stated that he knew that he was residing in Kanjarwada and was gunda of the locality and that he had told the police at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. about those facts. He, however, admitted that in his statement he did not give the detailed particulars of whom he knew and saw among the miscreants and that there may be a number of persons by the name Keshya. In view of the above admissions of P.W.2 we are at loss to understand how the surnames of Vijay and Keshya and the name of Laxa could find place in the formal F.I.R. recorded on the statement of P.W.2. Equally surprising is that though P.W.2 named Keshya, his name was also given as @ Kishore Marrya. While on this point it is also pertinent to mention that the full name of the appellant Kishore who, according to P.W.2, was named as Keshya in his statement, is admittedly 'Kishore Kaheshkar'. From all these peculiar facts and circumstances, which remain unexplained, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the F.I.R. was not at all prepared at the time alleged by the prosecution (4.15 a.m.). Indeed, in the instant case the F.I.R. was not the basis of the investigation-as it should be - but was the outcome of investigation“ In a recent case of Ganesh Gogoi v. State of Assam, 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 771 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that: “22. It is clear from the aforesaid statement, investigation in the case had already commenced and once investigation commences the F.I.R. is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and no value can be attached to the same.” 14. It is clear from the aforesaid statement, investigation in the case had already commenced and once investigation commences the F.I.R. is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and no value can be attached to the same.” 14. As a matter of fact, the prosecution in the instant case has not been able to clearly establish as to how, when and who were responsible for the incident which resulted in death of Prabhu. The prosecution had come with the case that neck of the deceased was pressed by the accused which resulted in his death by asphyxia. However, on perusal of Surat Lash and the Panchayatnama, it is revealed that there were minor injuries, in the nature of abrasion, on the neck and shoulder of the deceased. In fact, no mention has been made with regard to cause of death. A look to the postmortem report goes to show that there were 13 injuries in all. But no information with regard to reason of death was given to the medical jurist nor any such mention had been made in the postmortem report (Ex.P/11). The cause of death was said to be asphyxia brought about as a result of antemortem pressure on mouth, nostril and neck (i.e. throttling) which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The medical jurist had deposed that the death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. Therefore, it is not clear as to how the death of the deceased Prabhu was caused. So far as external injuries, given out in the postmortem report, do not indicate the injury which could have been fatal in causing the death. 15. Similarly when the medical evidence on record is looked into along with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it again cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case as to whether the death of Prabhu had taken place at the time, as given out by it. The case of the prosecution is that Prabhu had died in the morning at about 6.00 am on 21.04.2002 and when the informant had reached the bada, he had seen his father struggling on account of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the death had taken place somewhere at the time of sunrise. But on the other hand, the medical evidence on record reveals that there was semi-digest food in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, the death had taken place somewhere at the time of sunrise. But on the other hand, the medical evidence on record reveals that there was semi-digest food in the stomach of the deceased. In other words, the death had occurred about 4 to 4½ hours after taking meal. According to the prosecution case also, the deceased had gone to sleep in his bada after taking meal in the evening. The semi digested food in the stomach goes to show that the death of Prabhu had taken place at around midnight of 21st and 22nd April, 2002 i.e. after about 4 to 4½ hours after taking meal in the night. Therefore, the time of death being midnight according to the medical evidence on record and in the morning of 21st and 22nd April, 2002, according to the ocular evidence of the prosecution, further creates a doubt in respect of time of death and the same goes to the root of the prosecution case. 16. Another important aspect of the prosecution is that it had come with a specific case that it was at the time when the informant Vikram Singh had come to the nohra for providing fodder, etc. to his cattle that he saw Viay Pal, Brijendra and one another near his father. Further that on raising alarm by the informant Vikram Singh, Randhir Singh, Hari Singh and Girraj Singh had come to the place of incident. A close look to the statement of the prosecution witness Ramswaroop (PW- 10), who is an important prosecution witness, it is revealed that none of the eye-witnesses of the prosecution, namely Girraj Singh (PW-6), Randhir Singh (PW-7) and Hari Singh (PW-8) can be said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. Therefore, the statement of the said witnesses totally demolish the prosecution case.Apart from the fact that Vikram Singh (PW-1), Girraj Singh (PW-6), Randhir Singh (PW-7) and Hari Singh (PW-8) are the sons and brothers of the deceased Prabhu, they have made improvements and their statement are full of contradictions. Therefore, the statement of the said witnesses totally demolish the prosecution case.Apart from the fact that Vikram Singh (PW-1), Girraj Singh (PW-6), Randhir Singh (PW-7) and Hari Singh (PW-8) are the sons and brothers of the deceased Prabhu, they have made improvements and their statement are full of contradictions. If the informant Vikram Singh had seen the appellant Vijay Pal pressing the neck of his father Prabhu, he would have immediately rushed and tried to save his father but the case of the prosecution is that he had only raised alarm and when other persons, namely Girraj Singh, Randhir Singh and Hari Singh came towards the place of incident, the accused persons had fled away. The prosecution witness Girraj (PW-6) had deposed that he had heard noise of Vikram Singh that Brijendra and Vijay Pal had committed the murder of Prabhu but this was not corroborated from the statements of the other prosecution witnesses which are said to have reached the place of occurrence, namely Randhir Singh (PW-7) and Hari Singh (PW-8). On the other hand, the prosecution witness and informant Vikram Singh (PW-1) had later on stated that the aforesaid three witnesses had come after 5-7 minutes of his raising alarm. He has also admitted that before the arrival of three witnesses, namely Girraj Singh, Randhir Singh and Hari Singh, Ramswaroop and Jormal had come to the nohra. Ramswaoop (PW-10) had stated that he is not an eye witness of the incident. Therefore, when Ramswaroop (PW-10) had arrived at the place of incident prior to the three witnesses, namely Girraj Singh, Randhir Singh and Hari Singh, then it cannot be said that the said witnesses had seen the occurrence or that they can be said to be the eye witnesses. The learned trial court has seriously erred in not noticing the fact as revealed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that Ramswaroop (PW-10) had reached the place of incident prior to Girraj Singh (PW-6), Randhir Singh (PW-7) and Hari Singh (PW-8). In such circumstances, the conclusion of the learned trial court on the basis of testimony of the said three witnesses, holding them to be the eye witnesses, is wholly erroneous and contrary to law. 17. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the learned trial court on the basis of testimony of the said three witnesses, holding them to be the eye witnesses, is wholly erroneous and contrary to law. 17. In view of the above and taking into consideration the fact that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused appellant had caused death of Prabhu, mainly on the basis of the prosecution witnesses, Girraj Singh, Randhir Singh and Hari Singh whose very presence at the place of incident and their witnessing the occurrence is doubtful, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Moreover, the cause of death as well as the time of death as revealed from the medical evidence is not at all corroborated from other evidence of the prosecution and it raises a question on the reliability of the prosecution case. Lastly, the very fact that the first information report had come into existence at a very later stage clearly cast a shadow of doubt with regard to the prosecution version as well as the allegation against the accused to be responsible for commission of the crime. In a situation where the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the inevitable conclusion is that the accused should be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 18. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******